Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Post Office (Sites) Bill,

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd day of February, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely.

Post Office (Sites) Bill.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely,

North West Midlands Joint Electricity Authority Provisional Order Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HOUSING.

Mr. Westwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average housing subsidy paid for houses completed in the years ended December, 1934, 1935, 1936, and 1937, respectively?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): The information desired by the hon. Member is not available for the calendar years, but the average subsidy paid for houses completed in the years ended 15th November, 1934, 1935, 1936 and 1937 was respectively £10 9s., £10 14s, £12 6s. and £11.

Mr. Westwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that there is no lack of joiner labour and that there are large supplies of timber of building sizes in Scotland available for the erection of timber houses in the event of a decision to erect same; and whether he will agree to meet representatives of the employers' and employés' organisations before agreeing to approve of the importation from Sweden of houses in a pre-fabricated condition?

Mr. Elliot: With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) on 17th February. With regard to the second part of the question, the importation from Sweden of prefabricated timber houses is, as the hon. Member will recollect, not subject to my approval. If it is desired to secure any alteration of the existing protection enjoyed by British manufacturers, the proper course is to bring the matter to the notice of the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Mr. Westwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that employers are very anxious to meet and discuss with him the provision of this type of house in the interests of housing in Scotland?

Mr. Elliot: I think that my Department has already met them, but it is important in a matter of this kind that specifications and plans should be laid before those who are dealing with housing matters in the local authorities.

Mr. Kirkwood: Seeing that my constituency, particularly Clydebank, is the most overcrowded part of the British Isles, will the right hon. Gentleman recommend this type of house which can be rushed up in three weeks?

Mr. Elliot: I would recommend any type of house which can be properly inhabited in view of the frightful overcrowded conditions which exist in the hon. Member's constituency.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that these timber houses can now be built in the space of not more than 11 days?

Mr. Elliot: Surely it is desirable to bring that to the notice of local authorities.

Sir John Haslam: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not take too much notice of these arch-protectionists because Lancashire wants to export her cotton goods to Sweden.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the communication addressed to him from the Bathgate Town Council regarding the high costs of house building; and whether he will indicate what action he is taking in the matter?

Mr. Elliot: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 24th February to a similar question by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Cassells).

Mr. Mathers: Does not the fact that the Bathgate Town Council's refusal to proceed with a scheme six weeks ago has had the effect of bringing down the costs on the second lot to the extent of £55 per house give the right hon. Gentleman a hint that if he took action he could bring down costs?

JUVENILE OFFENDERS (BIRCHING).

Mr. Westwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to state what action, if any, he proposes to abolish the birching of children and young persons in Scotland?

Mr. Elliot: The report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Corporal Punishment has just been received, and until the Government has had an opportunity of considering it I regret that I am unable to make any statement on the matter referred to in the question.

Mr. Westwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the protests continually coming to Members of Parliament because of the application of sentences of this kind on young children?

Mr. Elliot: It is very desirable to consider the report of the Committee which went exhaustively into this matter.

Mr. Westwood: Can we have an assurance that there will be no undue delay in coming to a decision?

Mr. Elliot: I think I can give the hon. Member that assurance.

VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the increasing financial difficulties and debts of Scottish infirmaries and hospitals, showing that the system of voluntary contributions is no longer sufficient to meet the growing pressure of work in those institutions; and whether he is contemplating action on the lines of the report of the Committee on Health Services, published in 1936, with an increased measure of State aid?

Mr. Elliot: In reply to the first part of the question, I am aware that some of the voluntary hospitals have financial difficulties, but there is, I believe, no evidence that the voluntary system as a whole is unable to meet its commitments. As to the second part of the question, the many important and difficult problems involved are being carefully examined, but I am not in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the request for financial assistance for the hospital in Buckhaven, Fife; and whether, in view of the difficulty of adequately maintaining this hospital, he will take steps to assist in its maintenance?

Mr. Elliot: No request for financial assistance from the Buckhaven Hospital has yet reached me. There is, however, I fear, no provision under which I could give assistance towards its maintenance.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that subscriptions are made by the workers in order to keep the hospital going, if a request comes will not the right hon. Gentleman consider whether there are some ways and means of providing assistance to the hospital, or of recommending the local authority to take it over, with the promise of some State assistance?

Mr. Elliot: I cannot give any undertaking as far as legislation is concerned. I do not know of any provision under which I could give assistance.

SMALLHOLDERS (ADVICE).

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many organisers are employed for the purpose of advising smallholders in Scotland regarding methods of cultivation, marketing, etc.;


and how many visits on the average are made to each holder by the organisers annually?

Mr. Elliot: Thirty-four organisers and 49 instructors on the staff of the agricultural colleges, and five organisers employed by the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society, are at present available to advise smallholders in Scotland. In addition, holders on the schemes of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland are advised by the Department's 32 land officers. I regret that the records kept do not enable me to say how many visits annually are made to each holder, but every effort is made to meet any application for information or advice.

Mr. Mathers: With regard to the organisers employed by the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society, for whom the Government are largely responsible, does the right hon. Gentleman think there are sufficient of these organisers to enable a proper service to be given?

Mr. Elliot: I should not like to say offhand, but we do our best to meet all applications for advice.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Must there always be an application from the smallholder before an organiser visits the area?

Mr. Elliot: No, Sir. We do our best to meet any application.

Sir R. W. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman calling the special attention of organisers to the serious position of the poultry industry in Scotland, and will he see that no more smallholders are encouraged to go in for poultry fanning until some attention has been given by the Government to the industry?

OUTER HEBRIDES.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to keep the islands of the Outer Hebrides populated; and, if so, what policy and programme he has for this purpose; and what immediate plans he has in view to alleviate distress and the prolonged unemployment?

Mr. Elliot: I am afraid it is impossible to deal with a subject of such wide scope by means of question and answer in the House. As the hon. Member is aware, however, the special circumstances of the

Highlands and Islands have been, and are, constantly kept in view by the Departments under my charge.

Mr. MacMillan: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman and his Government have been in office since 1931 and that no policy has been produced, and that the tendency is towards the depopulation of these areas, can he not give us some indication of his policy, some simple statement of policy, and whether he has any plans at all on the matter?

Mr. Elliot: That is impossible within the limits of question and answer. The matter can be discussed on the Estimates.

Mr. Davidson: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether the policy which he is following now is taken with a view of keeping the population in these islands?

Mr. Elliot: Certainly.

WATER SUPPLIES, WESTERN ISLES.

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the water supply in the district of Garrabost, Isle of Lewis, is contaminated through lack of proper drainage; whether the Stornoway Trust, as proprietor, is responsible for communal drainage; and what assistance can he offer in having the work carried out in the interest of public health?

Mr. Elliot: The Department of Health for Scotland have asked for a report from the county council on the matters referred to in the question and as soon as this is received I shall communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. MacMillan: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he will take the same steps as he promised in every other case of water contamination brought to his notice, of which there are many?

Mr. Elliot: That is a different question.

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that several districts in the Western Isles have inadequate and contaminated water supplies; whether his promised review of this matter is yet completed; whether he will treat it as a matter of great urgency; and what practical steps he is at present taking to provide for safe and convenient supplies?

Mr. Elliot: I am aware that the water supplies at a number of places in the Western Isles are not satisfactory. I understand that the County Council of Inverness expect shortly to have before them the results of the engineering survey into the water supplies and resources in North Uist to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member on 30th November, 1937. As regards the last part of the question, it is for the local authorities concerned to consider the provision of proper water supplies in their area.

Mr. MacMillan: In view of the fact that in many areas local authorities have not taken any steps for many long years, during which there are these glaring instances, will the right hon. Gentleman bring some pressure to bear on these local authorities whose attitude is one of utter irresponsibility?

Mr. Elliot: I think their responsibility in the first instance, as is ours, is to the electors.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply is quite inadequate as this is a matter of public health? Will he not give some more definite reply as to what action he intends to take in the interests of the health of the population?

RENT RESTRICTION.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses in Scotland will be affected by the proposal of the Government to adopt the recommendation of the Inter-Departmental Committee to decontrol houses rented at £35 a year and over; and what action the Government propose to take to prevent the rents of these houses being increased following decontrol?

Mr. Elliot: The estimated number of houses in Scotland with a yearly value exceeding £35 but not exceeding £45, and at present subject to rent control, is about 50,000. The Ridley Committee found that there was no longer any serious shortage, even in Scotland, of houses of this class. No general action of the kind suggested by the hon. Member is, therefore, proposed.

Mr. Kirkwood: In the event of the property owners raising the rents of those houses, what action do the Government propose to take to protect the tenants?

Mr. Elliot: That is a hypothetical question.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pre-war houses in Scotland have had rents increased under the Rent Restrictions Acts since 1921; what is the estimated total amount of the increased rent per annum paid by the tenants; and is he aware that numerous organisations and local authorities are requesting a reduction in the postwar rents of pre-war houses because of the reductions in wages which have taken place since the property owners were permitted to raise rents by 47½ per cent. over the pre-war standard?

Mr. Elliot: The estimated number of pre-war houses in Scotland to which the Rent Restrictions Acts originally applied is 986,000. No information as to the total amount of rent paid by the tenants in excess of the 1914 rent is available. I have not myself received any representations to the effect suggested in the last part of the question.

Mr. Kirkwood: Am I to understand from the Secretary of State that he has not received representations from various organisations with a view to securing a reduction in the rents of this type of house?

Mr. Elliot: No, Sir. I think representations were made to the Ridley Committee, but I have not received any.

Mr. Maxton: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the supply of houses in Scotland is such as to justify decontrol?

Mr. Elliot: That is a question which the House will debate to-morrow afternoon.

Mr. Maxton: Surely I am entitled to have from the Minister a reply to my question?

Mr. Elliot: I agree with the Ridley Committee that as there is no serious shortage, even in Scotland, of houses in that class, it is reasonable that they should be decontrolled.

Mr. Kirkwood: Surely the Minister will give a more adequate answer, because although there is to be a Debate to-morrow—[Interruption.]

Mr. T. Johnston (for Mr. Cassells): asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of subjects registered as decontrolled


in Scotland under the Rent Restrictions and Mortgage Interest (Amendment) Act, 1933, Section 2?

Mr. Elliot: Information as to the number of houses registered as decontrolled by local authorities in Scotland is not available. The Ridley Committee estimated that 140,000 pre-war houses in Scotland with a yearly value of £26 5s. or less have become decontrolled.

Mr. Johnston (for Mr. Cassells): asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many dwelling-houses in Scotland do not have a rateable value of £35 sterling?

Mr. Elliot: It is estimated that the total number of houses in Scotland with a yearly value of £35 or less is about 994,000.

Mr. Johnston (for Mr. Cassells): asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that any system of decontrol of dwelling-houses in Scotland would favour landlords, with serious consequences to the tenants affected, he is prepared to extend the scope of the present Rent Act to all houses in Scotland let at a rental up to and including £35 per annum, exclusive of rates?

Mr. Elliot: Under the Government's proposals all houses in Scotland with a yearly value of £35 or less, and at present subject to rent control, will remain controlled and will not be subject to decontrol when the proprietor obtains vacant possession. It is not proposed to extend the area of control to houses not at present controlled.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

PRICES.

Captain Peter Macdonald: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that, now that more economic prices are being obtained for public utility and industrial fuels, it is necessary that the price of household coal to the public should be reduced; and what steps his Department are now taking to ensure that such reductions will come into being to an effective extent at an early date?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by the

Prime Minister to a question asked by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) on 17th February, in which he stated that the question of safeguarding the interests of the consumer was receiving his attention.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has received information regarding the increase in coal prices in Glasgow and the West of Scotland; and whether he will give the comparative prices paid by industrial and domestic users for the years 1935 and 1936, and the latest available date?

Captain Crookshank: The net proceeds per ton for all coal produced in Scotland and disposed of commercially was 12s. 3d. in 1935, 13s. 8½d. in 1936 and 15s. 7¾d. in 1937. The information asked for in the second part of the question is not available in my Department.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will not the hon. and gallant Gentleman make further inquiries into this matter, because the figures which I have show that the ascertained price at the pithead is 13s. 1¼d., whereas in the West of Scotland we are paying £2 6s. 8d. a ton for the same coal?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister has said that he cannot give the information.

Mr. Kirkwood: On a point of Order. The question which I asked has not been-answered.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister has said that he has no particulars on this subject.

Mr. Kirkwood: Surely it is his duty to get them. That is why we pay him £2,000 a year.

MINERS' WELFARE FUND.

Mr. Whiteley: asked the Secretary for Mines whether the Government intend to introduce legislation to restore the ½d. per ton levy for the Miners' Welfare Fund; and, if so, is it intended to use such restored levy for pensions for aged miners?

Captain Crookshank: The matter is being considered in connection with the pit-head bath programme.

ADVENTURE COLLIERY, DURHAM COUNTY.

Mr. Ritson: asked the Secretary for Mines what are the arrangements for giving facilities for the carrying out of


Section 76 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, and Statutory Rules and Orders 106 (a) (b), 107, 108, 109 (a), 110, 111, and 112 at Adventure Colliery, in the County of Durham?

Captain Crookshank: Sanitary conveniences required in accordance with the General Regulations made under Section 76 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, are not at present provided at this colliery, but appropriate action is being taken.

SHOT-FIRING (VOORTMAN APPLIANCE).

Mr. Whiteley: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has considered the representations made to him as to the value of the Voortman shot-firing appliance which is inserted in the drilled hole before stemming; and will he make a statement?

Captain Crookshank: This is one of a variety of methods by which it is sought to improve the safety and efficiency of

South Wales and Monmouthshire.


Year
Average Number of Persons employed in and about coal mines (including Clerks and Salaried Persons).
Output of Saleable Coal.
Output of Saleable Coal per manshift worked.








Tons.
Cwts.


1927
…
…
…
…
194,100
46,256,363
19·52


1928
…
…
…
…
168,269
43,311,966
20·23


1929
…
…
…
…
178,315
48,149,613
20·46


1930
…
…
…
…
172,870
45,107,912
19·98


1931
…
…
…
…
158,162
37,084,852
19·40


1932
…
…
…
…
145,709
34,874,302
19·36


1933
…
…
…
…
142,900
34,354,884
19·51


1934
…
…
…
…
139,806
35,173,317
19·83


1935
…
…
…
…
131,697
35,025,110
20·40


1936
…
…
…
…
126,233
33,886,179
20·82


1937
…
…
…
…
135,900*
38,245,500*
20·59†


*Provisional. †
†Nine months.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES (NUTRITION).

Mr. Leach: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence given by Dr. E. H. Cluver, deputy-chief health officer of the Union to the Native Labour Committee in South Africa that three-quarters of the native population is under-fed and that tuberculosis is increasing; and what steps he is taking to prevent these conditions spreading to the neighbouring British protectorates?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I have

shot-firing by more effective stemming of the shot-holes. No representations have been made to me recently, and I have no statement to make.

SOUTH WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.

Mr. Mainwaring (for Mr. E. J. Williams): asked the Secretary for Mines (1) the number of persons who were engaged in the South Wales and Monmouthshire coalfields for each year from 1927 to date;
(2) the output per man-shift worked, and the total annual output in the South Wales and Monmouthshire coalfield for 1927 and each year to date?

Captain Crookshank: As these questions involve a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, answer them together by circulating a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

seen a Press report of the evidence referred to in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, active steps are being taken to improve the diet of the natives in the High Commission territories, such as an extensive scheme in Basutoland to promote the cultivation of vegetables, and in Bechuanaland the expenditure of large sums of money to improve the water supplies, and the teaching of the value of green foodstuffs. I may add that the question of nutrition in these territories is being examined by the Committee of the Economic Advisory Council appointed to advise on nutritional


matters in the Colonial Dependencies generally. The position with regard to tuberculosis, which is closely linked with the problem of nutrition, is being carefully watched.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRALIA (ASSAULT INCIDENT, MELBOURNE).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, as there is no Italian Ambassador in Australia, he has been asked by the Commonwealth Government to request an explanation from the Italian Ambassador of the assault on a taximeter-cab driver in Melbourne by the crew of the Italian cruiser "Raimondo Montecuccoli"?

Mr. M. MacDonald: No request of the nature referred to by the hon. Member has been received from His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that there is no Italian Ambassador in Australia, will not the Minister make inquiries into this incident, in which Italians from a warship brutally attacked a resident of Australia, an emigré Italian, and left him in a very badly beaten condition?

Mr. MacDonald: This is a matter for consideration by the Australian Ministers, and I understand they have it under consideration at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

DESIGN IN INDUSTRY.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken or are contemplated, to carry out the recommendations contained in the report by the Council for Art and Industry on design and the designer in industry?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): Most of the recommendations contained in the report to which the hon. Member refers are directed to industrialists and do not call for specific action by the Government. The remaining recommendations relate to education and are primarily for the consideration of the local education authorities and governing

bodies responsible for schools of art. I understand that my Noble Friend the President of the Board of Education will be glad to encourage any developments on the lines of these recommendations.

Mr. Smith: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman inform the House what steps the Department are taking with a view to getting industrialists to act on the lines indicated?

Sir Percy Harris: Cannot the right hon. and gallant Gentleman secure greater publicity for these proposals among industrialists through the chambers of trade and the chambers of commerce?

Captain Wallace: The report was published in January, 1937, and received a considerable measure of publicity. If any hon. Member has any practical suggestion to make as to what we can do in this direction, I shall be glad to have it; but the matter does not seem to be one for any specific action by the Government.

CANNED FRUITS INDUSTRY.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will assure the House that, before the suggested reduction in duty is effected on the Colonial and American types of canned fruits, due regard will be given to the security of market required by the English canned fruits, in order that the English fruit-canning industry may not be prejudicially affected thereby?

Captain Wallace: I can assure my hon. Friend that due regard will be given to the representations received from the English canned fruits industry in any discussions that may affect it.

Mr. De la Bère: Will the Minister bear in mind the essential point that the home producer should receive a preference over the overseas producer, especially the home producer in the Vale of Evesham?

Captain Wallace: All relevant considerations will be borne in mind.

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. Tomlinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the representations from the Joint Committee of Cotton Trades Organisations embodying draft proposals for an Enabling Bill; whether it is his intention to promote such a Bill; and, if so, when it can be expected?

Captain Wallace: My right hon. Friend informed the Joint Committee of Cotton Trade Organisations on 20th December that the Government hoped the Committee would continue their consultations with various sections of the industry on certain important questions of policy in order that, provided these questions were settled to the satisfaction of the Government, it might be possible to proceed with the drafting of a Bill. Representatives of the Committee recently discussed their proposals again with my right hon. Friend, and the Committee are now continuing their discussions with various interests on the questions of policy referred to in December. The question as to whether or when legislation will be introduced must depend largely upon the result of these discussions and I regret that in these circumstances, I cannot at present give any undertaking.

Mr. Tomlinson: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman make known to the President that there is a big volume of opinion in Lancashire which thinks that unless something is done speedily in this direction, there will be no trade left to reorganise?

Captain Wallace: I think the President is perfectly well aware of that, and he is equally well aware of the fact that the next move is with the Committee.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Is this another Bill to prevent people having a free choice as to which industry they shall enter?

Captain Wallace: I am afraid that is a hypothetical question; the Bill has not yet been printed.

MEAT (PRICES).

Sir Robert Tasker: asked the President of the Board of Trade the price per stone of 8 lb. of the following classes of meat at Smithfield market on 21st February of this year and the corresponding Monday in 1935: Argentine chilled hindquarters, Argentine chilled fore-quarters, Uruguayan hind-quarters, Uruguayan fore-quarters, and Brazilian hind-quarters, respectively?

Captain Wallace: As the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:
Statement showing the mean wholesale prices of first and second grade South American chilled beef based on actual sales at the London Central Markets on Monday, the 21st February, 1938, and on Monday, the 25th February, 1935, as authorised for publication by the Central Markets Committee.


—
Price per 8 lbs.


21st February, 1938
25th February, 1935



s.
d.
s.
d.


Argentine chilled hind-quarters.
4
8½
3
6


Argentine chilled fore-quarters.
3
1
2
3


Uruguayan chilled hind-quarters.
4
4
3
1


Uruguayan chilled fore-quarters.
2
10½
2
1


Brazilian chilled hind-quarters.
4
2
2
11½

ITALY.

Mr. Price: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the negotiations with the director-general of the Italian Ministry for foreign trade and exchanges for an extension of facilities for obtaining credits for British exports to Italy?

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The negotiations on trade matters which are proceeding with the Italian Government are concerned with the revision of the Clearing and Commercial Agreements of 6th November, 1936. These agreements have now to be revised because the outstanding trade debts have now been practically settled. I hope that the discussions will facilitate a mutual increase of trade, but they raise no question of the extension of credit facilities for United Kingdom exports to Italy.

Mr. Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman, as a result of these transactions, take steps to secure that British exports to Italy will not exceed Italian exports into this country in such a way as to facilitate Italian campaigns and expeditions in Spain and Abyssinia?

Mr. Hudson: I should be very happy indeed if, as a result of the negotiations, our exports to Italy even reached the figure of our imports from that country.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain more fully his statement that—

Mr. Speaker: Not at Question Time.

Mr. Benn: Then can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that neither directly nor indirectly in these negotiations are we extending credit to Italy?

Mr. Hudson: I have already said that the question of credit does not arise at all in these negotiations.

GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (TRADE AGREEMENT NEGOTIATIONS).

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the Prime Minister whether he can undertake that no decision to sign a trade agreement with the United States will be taken until it has been published in draft and discussed in Parliament?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): No, Sir. It is, however, the practice of His Majesty's Government, in order to provide opportunity for Parliamentary consideration in ordinary cases, to lay treaty engagements for 21 Parliamentary days before ratification by His Majesty in all cases when the continuance of the Parliamentary Session makes this course practicable. When it does not, or when considerations of urgency require ratification without this preliminary, action would be taken accordingly and Parliament would be notified as soon as may be afterwards.

Mr. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the overwhelming majority of industrial and agricultural opinion is gravely perturbed about these negotiations, and does he realise the grave anxiety that those concerned should have some opportunity of knowing to what they are committed before His Majesty's Government sign a document which, in honour, they will be compelled to proceed to ratification?

Sir P. Harris: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the vast majority of people want a good understanding and desire the treaty to be made?

The Prime Minister: I do not think there is any foundation for the anxiety of industry and agriculture. In any case, I imagine there will be opportunities for discussion before ratification.

Mr. Williams: Is it not the case that every responsible industrial organisation in the country has made urgent representations to His Majesty's Government on this matter and up to now has received no satisfaction whatever?

MACHINE-GUNS (EXPORT).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of exports of machine-guns or machine-gun parts to Japan during the month of November, 1937?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I regret that in present circumstances it would be contrary to the public interest to publish such information respecting arms of a particular category for such a short period.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON AND PROVINCIAL PROPERTY SOCIETY.

Mr. Johnston: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the total estimated losses to the investors in the London and Provincial Property Society now in liquidation; whether he is aware that the manager of this concern was an undischarged bankrupt; whether the directors have returned any of their fees or emoluments to the liquidator; and whether any further action is contemplated against the promoters and exploiters of this concern?

Captain Wallace: From the information at present available, it seems that the loss to the investors in this society may amount to about £28,500. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the third, in the negative. As regards the last part of the question, the investigation into the affairs of the society has not yet been completed, and I cannot therefore say what action, if any, will be taken in the matter.

Mr. Johnston: In view of the repeated warnings which have been given to the Government about this concern, and in view of the tragic importance of this matter to very many people of limited means, could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Government not take steps to expedite action in cases of this kind?

Captain Wallace: We have, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, legislation under active consideration dealing with the sort of matters raised in this question.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the remarks made by the Official Receiver in liquidation proceedings that this is a glaring case which certainly needs the attention of the Board of Trade at the right moment to investigate some of the depredations which have taken place by these directors?

Captain Wallace: Yes, I am aware of these observations.

Mr. Johnston: Have the Government no power to prevent an undischarged bankrupt running concerns of this kind on to the rocks, which it may take some months to do?

Captain Wallace: Unfortunately, while an undischarged bankrupt is prevented from having charge of the management of a company registered under the Companies Act, there is no similar prohibition in the case of a company registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts. Legislation to deal with these societies is one of the particular points which, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, we discussed before Christmas

Oral Answers to Questions — GENERAL MORTGAGE SOCIETY (GREAT BRITAIN), LIMITED.

Mr. Johnston: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the extent of the losses suffered by investors in the General Mortgage Society (Great Britain), Limited, now in liquidation; whether any of the directors of this concern have offered to make compensation of any kind to the investors; and whether it is proposed to take any further action against the promoters and exploiters of this concern?

Captain Wallace: According to the statutory statement of affairs of the society, the amount invested by the public was £55,388, and I understand that it is probable that most of this amount will prove to have been lost. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. As regards the last part, the investigation into the affairs of the Society has not yet been completed, and I cannot, therefore, say what action, if any, will be taken in the matter.

Mr. Johnston: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman inform the House,

roughly and approximately, what amount of money the directors of this concern have taken out of it, and as these are persons who have made no offer of compensation, could he give us their names?

Captain Wallace: If the right hon. Gentleman will put that question down, I will do my best to give the information.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware who the directors of this society are? Is he aware that they are titled people and that their actions should be investigated very closely?

Captain Wallace: I think we are aware who they are, but I could not give their names without notice.

Mr. Bellenger: Well, I could tell you.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST COAST (FORESHORE DAMAGE).

Mr. Louis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department owned, or was responsible for, any part of the foreshore which was carried away by the recent high seas on the East Coast; if not, whether he can state on whom the responsibility rested; and whether regular examination is made of the existing earth works against such damage?

Captain Wallace: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the term "foreshore" is not applied to land above the high-water mark of ordinary spring tides. The position as regards the ownership of foreshore varies on different parts of the East Coast. Much of the foreshore is the property of the Crown and is under the management of either the Board of Trade or the Commissioners of Crown Lands. Other stretches of foreshore are the property of individual owners or local authorities. If my hon. Friend will furnish particulars of any particular stretch of foreshore in which he is interested I will have inquiries made as to whether or not it is owned by the Crown. With regard to the last part of the question, the Board of Trade have no jurisdiction above high water mark of ordinary spring tides, and, therefore, do not arrange for the examination of earth works constructed above high water mark.

Oral Answers to Questions — ICE PATROL, NORTH ATLANTIC.

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give particulars of the amounts contributed towards the expenses of the North Atlantic ice patrol for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date, and the respective contributions made by the various countries?

Captain Wallace: The total cost of the North Atlantic ice patrol for the 1936 season (March—July) was $152,203, of which the share of this country was 40 per cent., or $60,881. The other contributions are:

Per cent.


United States
18


Germany
10


France and Italy (each)
6


Netherlands
5


Canada and Norway (each)
3


Belgium, Denmark and Sweden (each)
2


Japan, Spain and Russia (each)
1

Mr. Day: Why does the contribution from Great Britain so greatly exceed those of other nations?

Captain Wallace: The contributions are based on the amount of shipping belonging to the respective Powers crossing the North Atlantic, and I think it is very satisfactory to know that we have 40 per cent. of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

VACCINATION.

Mr. Leach: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now reached a decision regarding the relaxation of the regulations which require the vaccination of entrants to the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Yes, Sir. Instructions will be issued that, except in the event of a small-pox epidemic, persons under 21 years of age are not, in future, to be required to be vaccinated or re-vaccinated before entering civilian employment at the Royal Arsenal or other War Department establishments in this country. Similarly, in the case of boys enlisting in the Army or entering Army schools, vaccination or re-vaccination will not be required on enlistment or entry.

Mr. Leach: While thanking the Minister most warmly for that excellent answer, may I put to him the question whether he is prepared to make any compassionate allowance to the bereaved family of the young fellow who lost his life in seeking to enter Woolwich?

Mr. Speaker: That is another question.

Mr. Leach: I think the Minister was prepared to answer it, Sir.

WILLINGDON COMMITTEE (REPORT).

Mr. Lees-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the report of the Willingdon Committee will be published before his statement on the Army Estimates?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: No, Sir.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this Committee was appointed as a result of a discussion in this House, and in order that light might be thrown on the subject; and will he also bear in mind that unless we have a report on this subject the discussions on the forthcoming Estimates will be largely vitiated in advance?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: No, Sir, I do not think that that is the case. My right hon. predecessor announced in the summer that he was appointing a Departmental Committee to advise him, and that report has been received. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, any proposal affecting Army officers has reactions upon other Departments. We are expediting our investigations, and I shall in due course announce to the House our intentions in the matter.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this Committee was appointed as the result of a debate in this House, and if he denies that, I may say that two of its members were appointed as a result of my own suggestion? In these circumstances, will he bear in mind that the last Committee dealing with the education of officers did issue a report, which has been of enormous assistance, and also to the discussions in the House; and will he reconsider his determination to preclude this House from having this information?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not wish to preclude the House from having information, and I wish to act in the interests of


Army officers. I have said that the report has been received, but it has certain reactions upon other Departments, which must be consulted; and if and when its proposals are published, I would naturally, in the interests of the officers, like to announce our intentions in regard to the report at the same time.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Then will the right hon. Gentleman issue the report?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I will consider that.

EDUCATIONAL CORPS.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider measures for bettering the conditions and prospects of the Army Educational Corps, especially of those ranker officers overseas; and whether he is aware that their prospects compare unfavourably with the ordinary elementary schoolmaster in civilian life?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes, Sir," though my hon. and gallant Friend will be aware of the special conditions of service and retirement in this Corps which make a solution difficult. I will, however, cause the matter to be again examined. As regards the second part

—
March, 1937.
March, 1938.


Hong Kong Area.






Royal Artilllery
…
…
5 batteries
…
…
6 batteries.


Hong Kong-Singapore Royal Artillery
…
…
4 batteries
…
…
4 batteries.


Royal Engineers
…
…
2 companies
…
…
2 companies.


Royal Corps of Signals
…
…
1 company
…
…
1 company.


Infantry:—






British
…
…
3 battalions
…
…
2 battalions.*


Indian
…
…
1 battalion
…
…
2 battalions,†


Shanghai Area.






Royal Corps of Signals
…
…
1 section
…
…
1 section.


Infantry (British)
…
…
1 battalion
…
…
2 battalions. †


Tientsin Area.






Royal Corps of Signals
…
…
1 section
…
…
1 section.


Infantry (British)
…
…
1 battalion
…
…
1 battalion.


* At the moment, owing to the incidence of trooping, there is one British battalion in excess of this establishment.


† The second British battalion in Shanghai is a reinforcement from Hong Kong where it has been temporarily replaced by an additional Indian battalion loaned by the Government of India.


Note.—In addition to the above formations there are the necessary ancillary troops.

CANTEENS (HOME AND EMPIRE PRODUCTS)

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give particulars of the steps that are taken to encourage

of the question, the highest pay of an elementary school headmaster is about £600 a year, applicable to a few of the highest grade schools. Officers of the Army Educational Corps after 10 years' commissioned service, receive time promotion to captain, with emoluments rising to about £660 per annum (married), or £550 per annum (single).

CHINA.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for War what British troops are stationed in China at the present time and how these forces compare with those maintained at the same date the previous year?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Day: Is it proposed to increase the force in Shanghai?

Mr. H. G. Williams: Does my right hon. Friend recollect the occasion in 1926 when this side was censured by the side opposite for increasing the garrison in Shanghai?

Following is the answer:

the sale of home and Empire products in Army canteens?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I understand that home and Empire products are indicated as such in the quarterly price lists of the


Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes and form the great majority of the articles included in those lists. In addition, during the week in which Empire Day has occurred annual displays of home and Empire products have been given in the grocery shops of all institutes, the country of origin of the products being clearly shown in each case.

Mr. Day: Is it found that soldiers prefer to buy goods of Empire origin?

Mr. George Griffiths: Do they not prefer to have home-produced meat?

Mr. De la Bère: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the products of the Vale of Evesham are put on sale?

PROMOTION FROM RANKS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now give the number of commissioned officers who have been promoted from the ranks during the past 10 years?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: On 8th February the hon. Member asked me to state the approximate number of officers of the British Army who have risen from the ranks. The number is 2,090, which is about 17 per cent. of the total strength of officers in the British Army. The hon. Member now asks for the number promoted from the ranks during the last 10 years. It is 981.

Mr. Sorensen: Do not these figures indicate that the possibility of a ranker rising to be an officer is really quite remote, and, in these circumstances, cannot the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to propose a fairer means of promoting rankers to the officer class?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The contrary is the case, for nearly 17 per cent. of the officers in the British Army have risen from the ranks.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not that mean that 83 per cent. have not risen from the ranks?

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY BILL.

Mr. Ede: asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to give a First Reading to the Bill for the reorganisation of the distribution of electricity?

The Prime Minister: In view of the heavy programme of work, I am afraid

I now see no prospect of being able to proceed with the Electricity Supply Bill during the present Session.

Mr. Ede: In view of the anxiety felt on the supplying side of the industry, will the right hon. Gentleman consider making an early announcement as to whether it is proposed to proceed at all with the reorganisation of that side?

The Prime Minister: I hope it may be possible to take the Bill early next Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND ITALY.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister what persons in addition to the Ambassador and his staff at Rome have recently been authorised to hold conversations officially or unofficially with the Italian Government on the subject of Anglo-Italian negotiations?

The Prime Minister: No one but the Ambassador or his staff has at any time been authorised to hold official or unofficial conversations with the Italian Government on the subject of Anglo-Italian negotiations.

Mr. Mander: Then I understand there is no foundation whatever for the widespread reports in the Press to the contrary, and that there has been no expenditure of public money?

The Prime Minister: Certainly, the hon. Member is fully justified in drawing that conclusion.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement with reference to the pledge of the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs not to undertake negotiations with Italy until anti-British propaganda had ceased; and whether the Government will still observe that pledge?

The Prime Minister: I have examined carefully the various statements made on this question by the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and I can find nothing in them that can be interpreted as a pledge binding His Majesty's Government not to undertake negotiations with Italy until all anti-British propaganda has ceased. In these circumstances, the second part of the question does not arise.

Mr. Mander: Do I understand that there is another difference of opinion between the Prime Minister and the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, the only difference of opinion is between the hon. Member and my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Mander: Has the propaganda, in fact, ceased?

The Prime Minister: I believe it has.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY.

YOUNG LOAN.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Treasury received all the proceeds of the London issue of the German 5½ per cent. (Young) Loan, 1930–65; that the public were induced to subscribe to the loan on the faith of the Treasury White Paper terms which included a sinking fund contract that has not been honoured; and will he offer an option to exchange the 5½ per cent. German bonds level at par into 3 per cent. British 1965 bonds whereby the Treasury can extinguish its moral obligation and the British bonds, without cost to the taxpayer, by using as a sinking fund the difference between the 5½ per cent. received and 3 per cent. paid?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): The net proceeds of the London issue of the German Government International 5½ per cent. Loan, 1930, amounted to £10,000,000, of which the United Kingdom Treasury received £9,000,000 and the rest of the Empire £1,000,000. The loan is an unconditional liability of the German Government and no liability in respect of it attaches to His Majesty's Government. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

COLONIES.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the passage in the German Chancellor's speech to the Reichstag on 20th February expressing a wish for the return of the former German Colonies, he will give an assurance that no consideration will be given to any possible solution of this problem except as part of a general settlement?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to previous statements on this subject

made on behalf of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that the Government have always said that they would consider the question of the Colonies only in association with a general settlement, can I assume that that is still the position, and that there is no change?

The Prime Minister: I said that I have nothing to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that large numbers of old age pensioners are subject to Poor Law relief; and will he take steps to introduce legislation at an early date to amend the Old Age Pensions Acts so as to provide for the payment of amounts adequate to meet the requirements of the persons involved and so obviate the necessity of their having to seek public assistance to supplement their pensions?

Sir J. Simon: Of the total number of old age pensioners, about 10 per cent. are in receipt also of public assistance. I would refer the hon. Member as regards the last part of the question to the answer given on 28th October last to my hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams).

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to the smallness of the pension and the increase in the cost of living, scores of thousands of old age pensioners throughout the country are subjected to Poor Law relief; and in spite of those facts are not the Government prepared to do anything to come to the aid of the aged people?

Sir J. Simon: This matter has been the subject of questions before, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read my answer and the answer to which I have referred.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is imposing on some county authorities a heavy burden which is becoming almost unbearable?

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND TAX.

Mr. Price: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the small returns from the Land Tax in


relation to the cost of collection, he will consider the advisability of merging it into some other tax or extinguishing it by compulsory redemption?

Sir J. Simon: The assumption on which the hon. Member's question is based that the cost of collecting Land Tax is high relatively to the yield cannot be accepted, and I do not consider that at the present time any action on the lines he suggests is desirable.

Mr. Maxwell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the unequal distribution of this taxation causes a considerable amount of annoyance?

Oral Answers to Questions — SMUGGLING.

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any increase in smuggling has been recorded in the last few months; and how far is it connected with imports from the Continent of Europe?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part, therefore, does pot arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (ASSISTANCE).

Mr. Mainwaring: asked the Minister of Labour, having regard to the appeal issued by the Personal Service League referring to the want of clothes and boots by unemployed workers, whether he is prepared to accept this as evidence of the inadequacy of the existing scales of allowances and recommend an increase in the amounts now granted?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given to the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on 21st October last on the subject of the Board's scales generally. Apart from the payment of weekly allowances under these scales, the Board have wide discretionary powers to meet special or exceptional needs. There will always, however, be scope for the services of voluntary organisations who are free to give help in their own way, and to deal with cases which are outside the province of statutory schemes of assistance.

Mr. Mainwaring: Does not the reply involve the admission that there is work to be done such as would not be necessary if the Government scheme did not fail to meet adequately the needs of these persons?

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-LINES (PETROL RESERVE).

Mr. Perkins: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that German air-lines operating in Europe operate with a 50 per cent. reserve of petrol; and what petrol reserve is carried by both Imperial Airways, Limited, and British Airways, Limited, machines while flying in Europe?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I am not aware of any official German regulations or operating instructions requiring German air-lines in Europe to carry a 50 per cent. petrol reserve. I understand that the amount of fuel carried is left to the discretion of the pilot in charge who takes into consideration the journey, weather and load. This is also the position with Imperial Airways and British Airways.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMOKE POLLUTION.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Health whether it is proposed to take any steps to enable the localities affected to benefit from the report or observations contained in the twenty-second report issued by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on the investigation of atmospheric pollution; and what is the policy of the Ministry on the problem of smoke pollution of the atmosphere?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): Copies of the report have been sent to the local authorities of the areas concerned and other bodies co-operating in obtaining the records included in the report. My right hon. Friend's policy is to encourage local authorities to exercise their statutory functions under the smoke prevention provisions of the Public Health Act, 1936. The main difficulty in the way of effective action is lack of knowledge of practicable means of prevention, and investigations into various aspects of the problem are being carried out by the Government, by local authorities and by industry. The


Department's officers are always prepared to assist local authorities and industrialists in particular difficulties.

Mr. Smith: What steps have been taken by the Minister to encourage local authorities to deal with it?

Mr. Bernays: I stated that in my answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health under what authority medical superintendents of mental hospitals, visiting committees, or public authorities, charge for services rendered in connection with proceedings for divorce taken under the Matrimonial Causes Act?

Mr. Bernays: If the hon. Member will send me particulars of the charge for services to which he refers, I will make inquiries.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, in fact, proceedings under this Act do involve a certain amount of expense and loss of time to medical superintendents, and in the circumstances can he not give some indication of whether charges could be made on behalf of the local authorities for such services?

Mr. Bernays: It is not yet established that payment for such services is required, but, as I have said, my right hon. Friend will make inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTRIBUTION (AIR-RAID SHELTERS).

Mr. De Chair (for Commander Marsden): asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in assessment for the National Defence Contribution, he is prepared to grant relief in respect of expenditure by employers on the provision of air-raid shelters?

Sir J. Simon: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given on 29th April, 1937, by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Sir M. Grattan Doyle) of which I am sending him a copy. As my hon. and gallant Friend will see on reference to Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1937, the computation

of profits for the purposes of National Defence Contribution follows in general the computation of those profits for the purposes of Income Tax, and whatever expenditure is allowed as a deduction for Income Tax purposes will be allowed for the purposes of National Defence Contribution.

Oral Answers to Questions — GIBRALTAR.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statements made at a military parade at La Linea on the outskirts of Gibraltar on Sunday last by General Queipo de Llano uttering threats against Great Britain in relation to Gibraltar; whether His Majesty's Government have made representations to the Spanish Insurgent authorities; and whether it is proposed to take immediate steps to strengthen the garrison at Gibraltar?

The Prime Minister: I have seen the accounts of the statements referred to which have appeared in the Press. I am asking for a report on the accuracy of these accounts, on receipt of which I will consider what importance should be attached to these alleged statements.

Mr. Alexander: Are we to understand from that reply that information which has been supplied by a tried correspondent, whose previous telegrams have been proved to be well-founded and true, has not reached His Majesty's Government, including the statement that justices of the peace and other officials at Gibraltar were present on the occasion?

The Prime Minister: I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the reports, but I think that before considering any steps to be taken it is just as well to get official confirmation.

Mr. Jagger: Will the Prime Minister consult with the newly-appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, who will probably be able to tell him?

Mr. Alexander: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is very disturbing that 48 hours after this event the Government can give no information about this matter at all, and does that mean that their Consular or representative service in Gibraltar is not functioning?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, it does not mean any of those things.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Is there a British Consul stationed in any part of His Majesty's Dominions?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister when the Debate on Defence will take place, and when we can expect a White Paper?

The Prime Minister: The Defence White Paper will be available in the Vote Office to-morrow, and I propose to allot Monday, 7th March, for a Debate on Defence as a whole.

Mr. Churchill: What is intended to be the procedure for conducting the Debate? Will a statement be made at the beginning on behalf of His Majesty's Government either by the Prime Minister or by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence?

The Prime Minister: I propose to begin by making a statement on behalf of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister how far it is proposed to go in the event of the Motion to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule being carried?

The Prime Minister: We hope to make good progress with the Supplementary Estimates that are on the Paper, without asking the House to sit unduly late. We propose also to take the third Order, which is the Superannuation (Various Services) Bill, which should not last long. The House will appreciate that at this time of year consideration has to be given to the business of Supply and that a large number of Supplementary Estimates have to be considered. I hope that we shall make substantial progress to-day.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 112.

Division No. 111.]
AYES.
[3.42 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Cal. G. J.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Errington, E.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Albery, Sir Irving
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Everard, W. L.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Fleming, E. L.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Colfax, Major W. P.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Colman, N. C. D.
Furness, S. N.


Assheton, R.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Gluckstein, L. H.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Goldie, N. B.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Grant-Ferris, R.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Granville E. L.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Crooks, Sir J. S.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Bernays, R. H.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Cross, R. H.
Grimston, R. V.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Crossley, A. C.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)


Blair, Sir R.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Culverwell, C. T.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Bossom, A. C.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.


Boulton, W. W.
De Chair, S. S.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
De la Bère, R.
Hannah, I. C.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H


Brass, Sir W.
Denville, Alfred
Harbord, A.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Harvey, Sir G.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Doland, G. F.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Duggan, H. J.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.


Bull, B. B.
Dunglass, Lord
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Eastwood, J. F.
Hepworth, J.


Butcher, H. W.
Eckersley, P. T.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Butler, R. A.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Higgs, W. F.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)


Cary, R. A.
Ellis, Sir G.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Elmley, Viscount
Holmes, J. S.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Emery, J. F.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Channon, H.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.




Hndson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southpart)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Hulbert, N. J.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Hunter, T.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Kurd, Sir P. A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Spears, Brigadier-General E L.


Keeling, E. H.
Patrick, C. M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Karr, H. W. (Oldham)
Parkins, W. R. D.
Stewart, J. Henderson (File, E.)


Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Kimball, L.
Petherick, M.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Pilkington, R.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Plugge, Capt. L. F
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Porritt, R. W.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Leech, Sir J. W.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Lees-Jones, J.
Radford, E. A.
Tate, Mavis C.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Ramsbotham, H.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Liddall, W. S.
Rankin, Sir R.
Touche, G. C.


Lipson, D. L.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Train, Sir J.


Lloyd, G. W.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Loftus, P. C.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Raid, W. Allan (Derby)
Turton, R. H.


M'Connell, Sir J.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Wakefield, W. W.


MacDonald, Rt. Mon. M. (Ross)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Rosa Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


McKie, J. H,
Rowlands, G.
Walt, Major G. S. Harvie


Maonamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Markham, S. F.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Salmon, Sir I.
Wise, A. R.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Mills, Sir F. (Leylon, E.)
Samuel, M. R. A.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Milts, Major J. D. (Now Forest)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Sandys, E. D.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Moreing, A. C.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.



Morgan, R. H.
Scott, Lord William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Selley, H. R.
Captain Hope and Mr. Munro.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pearson, A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hayday, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adamson, W. M.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Price, M. P.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Pritt, D. N.


Ammon, C. G.
Hollins, A,
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Jagger, J.
Ridley, G.


Banfield, J. W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Riley, B.


Barnes, A. J.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Ritson, J.


Barr, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Batey, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Robinson. W. A. (St. Helens)


Bellenger, F. J.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Kirby, B. V.
Sexton, T. M.


Benson, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Shinwell, E.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Silverman, S. S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Leach, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Buchanan, G.
Lee, F.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Burke, W. A.
Leonard, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cape, T.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cluse, W. S.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Daggar, G.
Lunn, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stephen, C.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McEntee, V. La T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Day, H.
MacLaren, A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dobbie, W.
Maclean, N.
Thurtle, E.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Tomlinson, G.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mander, G. le M.
Viant, S. P.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mathers, G.
Walkden, A. G.


Frankel, D.
Maxton, J.
Walker, J.


Gallacher, W.
Messer, F.
Watson, W. McL.


Gardner, B. W.
Milner, Major J.
Westwood, J.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Montague, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blayden)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N)
Owen, Major G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Paling, W.



Hardie, Agnes
Parker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. Charleton.


Question put, and agreed to.

LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT.

Captain Ramsay: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854.
In asking the House to give sympathetic consideration to this Bill, may I make two general remarks? Firstly, although the object of the Bill may appear to be insignificant, the number of persons which it concerns is by no means insignificant. Large numbers of the best elements of the working classes throughout this country are personally interested day in and day out in the subject of the Bill. Secondly, it is of national interest in relation to the organisation of the leisure of the working classes, which will become more and more of a problem as time goes on. The Bill itself entails no new legislation; it is in reality an amendment or interpretation of a Section of the Act of 1854 which bears little or no relation in this regard to the circumstances of to-day.
In effect, the Bill provides for the exemption from rating of any shed or greenhouse of a superficial area of less than 100 square feet, provided that such shed or greenhouse is kept solely for the purposes of a hobby, such as the keeping and flying of pigeons, the growing of plants, or the keeping of animals. The question may be asked, how is it possible to tell whether it is a hobby or not? In any given district it is comparatively easy to tell whether any individual is growing plants or flying pigeons as a hobby, and, where there was any difference of opinion, it would be quite easy to obtain a certificate from one of the many societies which cover these occupations. In my opinion, and in that of many of my hon. Friends, it is becoming increasingly important, in view of these times of mechanisation and the loss of individuality that is inseparable from the occupations of to-day, to give every man, or as many men as possible, the opportunity of some individual creative effort and interest which shall afford rest, not only of body, but of mind, when the day's work is done; and it is my contention that, in these hobbies which exist all over the country, you have such an interest and such an individual creative enterprise.
The country is spending large sums of money in organising the leisure of the working classes, and I believe that by

this Measure, with practically no expenditure, we could do a great deal to enable people to follow the occupations which they themselves have chosen for their spare time, and of which the framework and structure are already in existence. At the present moment, as a result of, in my opinion, vexatious and erratic interpretations of the existing Act, these little sheds are rated on quite different scales. In some areas they are rated at one level, in others at another level, and in still others not at all. The Bill would equalise and regularise that discrepancy. Moreover it would remove a constant source of irritation rather like that which, as many of us are aware, has recently been removed in the tax that used to be paid in respect of the employment of keepers, gardeners, butlers, and male servants of any kind. This is another vexatious tax from which there is little or no return, and which creates a sense of irritation, possibly deterring people from going in for these occupations which are so good for them. On these grounds I would beg the House seriously to consider this very short amending Bill.
It does not involve any new principle. In the case of Income Tax it is admitted that there shall be a level below which a man shall not pay tax, and by many authorities it is admitted, even in this particular form of rating, that there shall be a level below which a man shall not be called upon to pay. Many local assessors exclude any area below 60 square feet or 70 square feet—the figure varies. Therefore, in submitting the Bill to the House, I would sum up by saying in brief that it is a Measure that involves no new principle, that involves no fresh legislation, that works along the line that everyone has at heart, of providing for the working classes on the easiest terms, a method and an encouragement in the advantageous spending of their spare time.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Captain Ramsay, Sir Arnold Wilson, Captain McEwen, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Hunter, and Miss Horsbrugh.

LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL,

"to amend the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 93.]

SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 91.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 67.]

HIRE-PURCHASE BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Friday, 6th May, and to be printed. [Bill 92.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 69.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway Act 1906 and to enable the Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway Company to provide road and air transport services and for other purposes." [Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway Bill [Lords.]

BOMBAY BARODA AND CENTRAL INDIA RAILWAY BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1937.

CLASS III.

PRISONS, ENGLAND AND WALES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Prison Commissioners and of the Prisons in England and Wales

3.59 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): I am afraid that on this Vote it will not be possible to have a discussion on Borstal treatment and the results which have been achieved from it, but possibly at some future time, on the Home Office Vote, I shall have an opportunity of saying something on that subject. So far as to-day is concerned, I must, I understand, restrict myself very narrowly to the object for which this sum of £10 is required. We need this Supplementary Vote to enable us to start on the completion of a transaction the result of which will be to give us another Borstal institution. The Committee will wish to know why we want another Borstal institution and what kind of institution we contemplate. It may be suggested that we need a new Borstal institution owing to what is called by many people outside the great growth of juvenile delinquency. I have more than once had an opportunity, both in this House and outside, of dealing with that question, and I have stated what is my own view and the view of my advisers, that there is no reason to suppose that the new generation is going to the dogs. If statistics suggest that the young are becoming more and more criminal, to a great extent that can be explained by a much simpler and more accurate kind of explanation.
So far as Borstal cases are concerned, for instance, I suggest that the main reasons for the increase are three: First

of all the passing of the Children Act, which greatly stimulated public interest in the whole question of the treatment of juveniles; secondly, the fact that only about a year ago the age for boys and girls in Borstal institutions was raised from 21 to 23; and, thirdly, the fact that we are now beginning to feel the results of the increase of population in the years immediately after the War.
I think it will be found that those are the three main reasons why we want more Borstal accommodation, and why, when we come to consider the next Vote, we want more accommodation in approved schools. Moreover, our experience goes to show that both with Borstal institutions and with approved schools it is a mistake to have too big institutions. The essence of the treatment is individual influence upon the boys and girls, and when you have institutions which are too big and too full you cannot get the real benefit out of the kind of training that we are attempting to give to these young people. The result is that we need another Borstal institution for boys and we need it at once, both for the extra numbers and for the better individual treatment that is possible in these rather smaller institutions.
The other question upon which hon. Members will wish to have some information is, what kind of institution am I asking the Committee to approve? Our proposal is that we take over what was in the past the London County Council centre for the unemployed at Hollesley Bay, Suffolk. The Hollesley Bay centre is very well suited for a Borstal institution. It covers something like 1,300 acres of land. It is particularly suitable for the cultivation of fruit and for other kinds of agricultural work which we are finding very valuable as training for Borstal boys. Further than that it gives us the space to disperse the houses over a considerable expanse rather than to concentrate them in a single centre. We have found, in our efforts to increase the self-reliance and the feeling of responsibility of the boys, that we succeed better if we deal with them in small groups of this kind rather than in a single central large institution.
We propose at Hollesley Bay to divide the boys into four or five separate communities, run upon what in schools is called the house system, all of them open to the country and not enclosed by high


walls. One of the most interesting features of Borstal training has been the absence of prison wails and the freedom of the boys to move about in a large expanse of open country. As the Committee know, that has been so successful an experiment that we have in recent years extended it to one of our prisons, that at Wakefield, and perhaps it is one of the most satisfactory features of modern penal administration that you can so often succeed, indeed you can so often better succeed, without the high walls and mediaeval appearances of the older prisons. In any case this new institution will be a group of colonies scattered over the 1,300 acres of agricultural land. I think it is just the kind of background that we need for an institution of this kind. The training of the boys will certainly mean a lot of exercise, a lot of hard work, a lot of intensive training, but it will not require high walls or rigid police supervision. I hope that after that short explanation the Committee generally will agree with both the objectives underlying this Vote.

Mr. Maxton: How many are you going to house at this place?

Sir S. Hoare: There will be eventually about 300, divided into five groups. We are starting on a smaller scale. I am anxious that as soon as we can we shall call these boys colonists and call the groups in which they are dispersed colonies. The more in Borstal institutions and approved schools we can get away not only from the old penal traditions but from the terminology as well, the better it will be.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £5.
I do not think the Home Secretary has told us the whole story yet. If he does not mind my saying so in passing, he has painted Hollesley Bay and such places as Wakefield and the prisons of the land almost as if they were holiday resorts. This token Vote, of course, is put before us in order that the Home Office may proceed with the purchase of Hollesley Bay in Suffolk. We are told that the colony will cost £85,000, and that it is intended to spend £108,769 on alterations and additions. To the uninitiated the first question to occur would be, would it not be better to put up a new and modern

building? There is another thing that ought to be remembered. I understand that these boys are to be brought from all over the country, but I do not know definitely whether the Home Office has it in mind that this new Borstal institution will just be a place to receive boys from a comparatively small area or whether it is intended that they shall be brought from all over the country. It seems to me, as one who is not very well versed in this problem of Borstal training, especially as relatives have to visit the boys from time to time, that we should not concentrate too much on any given area when these boys are being trained.
The Home Secretary ought to give us a little more information about one aspect of the problem. I see that the London County Council had a fairly large staff at this place. Unless I am mistaken they had 120 officers and employés. Are the London County Council transferring any of those employés to the Home Office when the place is taken over? If the Home Office intends to take over some of these employés, are they the right type to manage an institution of this kind? If the high aims of the right hon. Gentleman are to be carried out in the training of these young people, the staff that was good enough for an unemployed colony like Hollesley Bay can hardly be suitable for a new Borstal institution. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in saying that there are at least three specific reasons why the old Borstal institutions are bulging. We include in them now certain categories that were excluded hitherto. In these extensions at Hollesley Bay I am wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman has any plan in his mind. Is he satisfied that this place will be sufficient for the next five or ten years? Those who are interesting themselves in the training of these young men have paid a great deal of attention to what is called psychology. I cannot very well deal with the general problem of psychology in connection with this Vote, but when the Home Office embarks on a new institution like this and spends nearly £200,000, it ought to have all the available experience and equipment that are needed to provide training that is suitable to these young people. I have visited one or two institutions where that sort of thing is done, and I am sorry to say that, by comparison with one or two


foreign countries, we are not up to standard in that connection. I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have been able to say something about some new treatment of young offenders, when he is embarking on a new institution. When we enter a new house, we try out new experiences as a rule. I think the Home Office should bear that in mind when buying this new place.
Might I suggest that in future, when we come to the main Vote, we ought to get the report covering Borstal institutions very much earlier. The report for 1935, dealing with the very problem we are now discussing, was published only in April, 1937. I do not think that is good enough. We ought to have the report in order that our deliberations may be intelligible. I want to ask whether, in proceeding with this new institution, all the known methods of training are to be adopted and a new type of teacher introduced. Vocational training has been introduced in our Borstal institutions to the disadvantage of instruction; I think it is admitted that instruction, as such, is lacking in some of them. I see no reason why we should be over-critical of the Home Office for extending accommodation for Borstal in the way the right hon. Gentleman proposes, and we shall therefore decide later whether we shall divide against the proposal or not.

4.20 p.m.

Sir John Withers: I should like, first, to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman very heartily on the most sympathetic way he introduced the Vote. When he described what is going to be done at Hollesley Bay, I thought it was a very good augury for the future. The whole thing to my mind, is to distinguish as far as possible between the different types of wrong-doers. Here, you have a perfect place—a very large estate with five different houses; and you will be able in each one to deal with a particular sort of ill-doer that you want to retrieve. After all, the object is not to punish but to retrieve; and I think the right hon. Gentleman understands that. I think the Hollesley Bay experiment ought to be supported, on the ground that it gives an opportunity for new ideas to be put in force.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Lansbury: I wish to support the proposition before the Committee, but I also wish to call the Committee's

attention to the fact that, in this question of Hollesley Bay, we have retrogressed rather than gone forward. This estate has been in the hands of public authorities for over 30 years. It was bought originally by an American, and the object for which it was bought was to train men; to prevent them, because of poverty, becoming chargeable to the taxes or the rates; and to develop the idea of cooperative smallholdings in this country and, for those who chose to go, abroad. It was a training institute for men who at that time received no unemployment pay, and for whom there was no organisation whatever except what was called the London Unemployment Fund. I think it is worth while reminding the Committee that this estate, which is now being handed over by the London County Council, originally cost, bare, with only the then buildings on it, £30,000, and that that money was advanced as a free loan to London, together with some other thousands of pounds for other buildings, on an honourable understanding that the estate should never be used for Poor Law purposes, or any other purposes than training men who needed training for the land. Mr. Joseph Fells tried very hard to get that embodied in the final sales agreement, but the President of the Local Government Board at that time pointed out that the public authority could not be bound in that way, but that both Mr. Fells and the local authority should take that into account and that it would be honoured. The War came and the whole idea of that place was smashed, and it become more or less—more rather than less—an able-bodied workhouse; and it has remained that ever since. The idea of any training has passed away, until now it is to be part of what is known as Borstal, for, I suppose, young people.
No one, I think, will quarrel with the Home Secretary's statement as to the manner in which this new institution is to be used. We all agree, that the smaller number there are to be dealt with the better; but I want, if I may, to say that it is really a terrible criticism on our social life and conditions that this place, originally established for the purpose I have mentioned, should have passed through these various phases and that we should now feel obliged to use it for this particular purpose. Without disputing what the Home Secretary said, that young people were not more criminal, and that


the statistics proved that, it remains true that the bulk of these youngsters—I think the overwhelming proportion of them—come to the condition which forces us to support a proposition of this kind, mainly because of unemployment. I cannot help thinking that, instead of taking this place and establishing other Borstal institutions of a similar character on the Wash, a saner thing would be to take these boys and girls long before they reach the point where you have to deal with them as semi-criminals and settle them, or train them to settle, either on the land here or, if they wish it—and not in any other circumstances—abroad.

The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is getting rather wide of the Supplementary Estimate. He would be quite in order on the main one.

Mr. Lansbury: I was quite sure, Captain Bourne, that I should go wrong before I finished, but I think I am in order in calling attention to what this place was established for, and expressing my regret that it has gone back and that now it is to be used in connection not with causes but with effects. Having expressed my regret, I want to say a word or two about the estate itself.

Viscountess Astor: I should like to put this point to the right hon. Gentleman, because I know that he and I feel the same. Really, you cannot say that most of these boys in these homes are victims of poverty. It is often a case of moral delinquency in their parents. It is not all poverty.

Mr. Lansbury: I never said that it was all due to poverty. I said that a considerable proportion of it was. I happen to deal with many more boys and young people than does the Noble Lady.

Viscountess Astor: I am not at all sure about that.

Mr. Lansbury: I am quite certain that I do, and there is no one in this Committee who knows more about the Hollesley Bay Estate than I do. Although I hope that it will be bought, I spent years as chairman of the committee which was responsible for managing it, and I have had the dissatisfaction of seeing it reduced to what it is to-day Does the Noble Lady think that it is a good thing

that boys and girls should be born into the world and allowed to sink to such an extent that they have to be brought up in these places? I should have been sorry if my children had had to undergo the same kind of treatment.

Viscountess Astor: Viscountess Astor rose—

Mr. Lansbury: I know perfectly well that my children and the children of the Noble Lady have very often been guilty of things that they ought not to have done. There are moral lapses everywhere, but do not let us be so foolish as to imagine that the crime in this country with which Borstal has to deal is all the result of moral lapses. It is poverty caused by economic conditions. [Interruption.] I have made that statement, Captain Bourne, and I am prepared to prove it whenever I have an opportunity.

The Deputy Chairman: I have allowed the right hon. Gentleman to proceed because of the interruptions, but I think that he had better try to prove it on some other occasion.

Mr. Lansbury: I hope, Captain Bourne, that you will be able to do what no other person in that Chair has ever been able to do, and that is, to keep the Noble Lady in order.

Mr. Ede: Find a Borstal institution for her.

Mr. Lansbury: Given the condition that you are obliged to deal with these young people, there is not a more ideal place in the country than Hollesley Bay. It is all that the Home Secretary claimed for it, and I am sorry that we have been obliged to deal with it in this way. I wish the boys the best of luck, and I hope it will be remembered that, in spite of what the Noble Lady has said, these are not merely cases of moral lapses, and that these boys have no more original sin than either the Noble Lady or I possess, but are just ordinary boys who have not had as good a chance as she and I have had.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Benson: I can understand the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), who has been so long connected with Hollesley Bay, but I think that to some extent he realises that the whole essence of Borstal treatment is that


of training. This morning I tried to find out what a Borstal institution is, and I was rather astonished to find how extraordinarily vague is the definition. As far as I can gather, a Borstal institution is a place where boys shall be trained and be subject to moral influences. That is the only definition we seem to have of a Borstal institution. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I think the whole Committee will agree that, if we have to have a new Borstal, such an admirable site should have been found for it. It is about three times as large as that of any other Borstal institution, and it contains a variety of occupations. After all, it means that we shall get another Borstal which is not merely a converted prison. That is an enormous advantage. No matter what the Home Secretary or his advisers do to a prison building, they cannot make it suitable for a Borstal institution. If you have a prison building or something equivalent to such a building, you have to lock up your boys at night, and, as the Home Secretary himself has said, locks, bolts and bars are entirely antagonistic to everything that Borstal means. If you are to build up trust and responsibility—and that is the essence of the Borstal treatment—you must have the very maximum of freedom for the boys.
I was rather disappointed in the statement of the Home Secretary as to why this new Borstal institution is necessary. I was aware of the increase not so much in crimes as in convictions, but I was hoping that the Hollesley Bay institution might ultimately lead to the closing down of one of the old Borstals. We seem to some extent to have overcome the overcrowding of Borstals of a few years ago. The period during which boys stay in Wormwood Scrubs has now been reduced practically to a minimum of something under three weeks. That period is necessary for their general organisation and classification, and I had hoped, when I first saw the Supplementary Estimate for a new Borstal, that it might mean that there would be an opportunity of closing down one of the older and less satisfactory Borstals. Perhaps, however, that will come in time.
I should like to know what type of boy is to be sent there? I assume that it is mainly character rather than geographical classification which decides where a boy has to go. What type of

regime are we to have there? That is of fundamental importance. We want more information as to the type of boy to be sent there, and what perhaps is to be done with him. We can get little or no indication from previous Borstals as to what is to happen, because there is no such thing as a Borstal system. There are seven Borstal institutions with entirely distinct systems, and this is going to make eight, and we have no guidance whatever as to what the right hon. Gentleman intends. I should judge from what we have been told, that it is an admirable place for a regime of minimum security for unruly boys. It is easy enough to give minimum security for boys who are not likely to run away or to give trouble, but here we have an opportunity of giving minimum security conditions to boys who in a camp nearer to a large centre of population might need a great deal more care exercised in regard to their supervision.
At any rate, this is a place for experiments. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make experiments boldly. As there is no Borstal system, he will have to strike out on a new line, and I hope that he is going to be bold. I would draw the attention of the Under-Secretary to the fact that those responsible for Borstal treatment are in an extraordinarily strong position. To begin with, they are absolutely free and unfettered. They have no regulations except of their own making. The words of the Act are so vague, indefinite and nebulous that they can do anything. The public will accept anything provided it is in the right direction, but they will not accept reaction. They will accept bold experiments of a progressive character. Borstal has proved itself over and over again, and it has given results in a way that could never have been dreamed of.

The Deputy-Chairman: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that he cannot raise this matter on the Supplementary Estimate. Such a statement would be in order on the main Estimate.

Mr. Benson: I take it that I can urge upon the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary the desirability of making experiments in connection with this particular camp. This is an opportunity for experiments, and I hope that we shall have experiments of a very broad and farreaching


character. I do not like the use of the word "institution" in this Supplementary Estimate in relation to "New Borstal Institution." The word "institution" has very unsavoury associations, and I hope that we are going to avoid as far as possible anything that one might term an institution. I know that it is difficult, but we should try to avoid institutionalising boys and girls. In regard to a boy who must be disciplined, it would be very difficult to avoid institutionalising, but it is very important, and I think that it can be done. The remedy seems to lie along two different lines. As the boy progresses in his sentence he should progressively become freer. That, I believe, is done to some extent, and it ought to be done even more. As the boy progresses more responsibility should be thrust upon him. Responsibility never did anybody any harm, and I feel that if Borstal treatment is to be improved it must include far greater responsibility than has hitherto been tried.
I suggest that the form it should take should be in the direction of experiments in self-government. I do not suggest that self-government should apply to the whole camp, or that boys who go there should immediately be given self-government. The Home Secretary has told us that we are to have five distinct camps. Is there any reason why these camps should not be graded in freedom and in responsibility? Is there any reason why the camp to which a boy finally proceeds before he passes out should not try the experiment of self-government? It has been very wisely said that you never avoid mistakes unless you give the opportunity of making mistakes, and it is also said that no Member of this Committee ever learns the Rules until he has broken them. I am not quite sure that that is a very happy parallel, because I think that the main advantage of knowing the Rules of this House is that we can avoid them without breaking them. It is essential that the boys should have an opportunity of making mistakes. The system of responsibility and the appointment of leaders is good, but I think that it might be bettered. I do not know whether I am in order on this point, but I would like to read a quotation from an article by a Borstal boy on this very point of responsibility. It is a quotation from an article in the "Howard Journal" by

Mark Benny, who has been at a Borstal camp:
Perhaps one in 10 house captains did take his job seriously and tried to acquire qualities of leadership. Most of them took it as a job, that gave them more privileges than they deserved. I feel that while this system is an attempt to introduce self-government, it would be much more successful if it were on a broader basis. Instead of this semi-democratic autocracy, there should be full democracy. Each boy should have a voice in the government; each should help to make rules and to impose them.
That may seem ideal, but if they are to make their mistakes and blunders it is better that they should make them inside than outside. I do not suggest that this proposal is going to be simple, or that it will not involve a considerable amount of trouble, but I do not think that anyone who ever applied for the job of being house master was not prepared to face some trouble. The whole essence of the scheme is the getting over difficulties, and I hope that the Home Secretary will see to it that these experiments in giving greater freedom and greater responsibility are tried. It is not an entirely new idea. I assume that he is conversant with the position of the Q camp, a voluntary organisation under the guidance of Mr. David Wills, himself an old Borstal master. There they are striving to run the camp on a system of self-government. They had their troubles, any amount of them, but the experience of the camp is well worth examining. Lessons can be learned from it which could be applied to other camps. The Home Office are acquiring a magnificent estate which ought to be used to its fullest capacity for experiments, and if those experiments are carried out I feel sure that they will bear full fruit in the future.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: I was disappointed with the statement of the Home Secretary, because he gave us very little information as to the type of training that is intended to be carried out. I hope that we shall hear more on that subject before we pass the Vote. A great many people are concerned about this matter, particularly those who have had the least to do with young people. I hope that there will be a little more regard paid, not to finding out what is the matter with boys or girls when they have been sentenced, but that every endeavour will be made to find out more about them before conviction.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Member cannot raise that point on this Vote.

Mr. Kelly: I will not go any further with it. I am anxious to know what is the type of training to be given at Hollesley Bay. I know it well, as a member of the county council, and I know that we shall pass the estate over to the Home Office at the price which they are offering, together with the silver cups, medals and the rest of it which are attached to Hollesley Bay. I hope that we shall be told whether it is intended to send young people from the approved schools to the places that are termed Borstal institutions. If so, it is a serious matter, because the Borstal institution, although we have tried to take the prison taint out of it—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is not entitled to raise the general question of sending juveniles to Borstal establishments on this Estimate.

Mr. Kelly: I hope that the training will be suitable. With regard to the purchase of the Hollesley Bay Estate from the London County Council, may I ask whether it is being purchased because of the lack of accommodation in the other institutions that already exist for what is termed Borstal training? If that be so, I am wondering why so many people are sent to such places and why there should be so much inclination to send young people for this institutional training rather than training them in their own homes. I hope that fewer young people will be sent to these institutions and that greater regard will be paid for home life, so that there will be fewer young people appearing before the courts.

4.50 p.m.

Viscountess Astor: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for having taken such a practical interest in the question of problem children. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) hopes that more interest will be taken in home life. If he will look at the report of the Children's Branch of the Home Office and will scan the list of homes—

The Deputy-Chairman: That matter does not arise on this Vote.

Mr. Kelly: I do not need to look at that report. I know it.

Viscountess Astor: It is very difficult to keep in order on this Vote. I would only say that I have been deeply interested in the Borstal experiment, which has proved itself beyond any words. It has proved itself to an extent which people could not have believed would be possible. We hear now and then of failures, but the number of the cases of success are staggering. We have experimented by allowing some of these children to go to camp—

The Deputy-Chairman: The Noble Lady cannot raise that point on this Vote.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: When the Home Secretary spoke about removing the prison walls he said that the first experiment in this country was made at Wakefield. If he was referring to England as "this country," he is correct, but if he was referring to Britain, I would point out that the first experiment was made in Scotland. I know that is so, because I helped to build the prison. I should like to suggest very seriously that opportunities should be given for the children to visit their homes. With regard to the Hollesley Bay Estate, one speaker drew attention to the distances that children would have to come from their homes. In view of the statement made by the Home Secretary about the walls being removed and a great free area being provided for the lads, I suggest that it would be very desirable if, instead of the parents having to travel long distances to see them, arrangements could be made to give the children a week-end at home occasionally. That would be one of the finest innovations, and if it were introduced I do not think there would be any trouble with the boys. They would understand and appreciate the great value of the concession, and their contact with home would be a very big advantage. I hope the Home Office will seriously consider that matter.

4.54 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): At the Home Office we agree with the suggestion that has been made by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), and we have already started a system of home visits from the Borstal institutions. Such a system is unquestionably valuable. There is, therefore, no difference of opinion between ourselves and the hon. Member on that matter. I do not think it is necessary for me to


argue generally the question of this Estimate because there is general agreement in the Committee. It merely remains for me to answer a number of the points that have been put. In the first place, I appreciate the position of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) with regard to the report of the Prison Commissioners, and I am glad to be able to tell him that it will come out in the immediate future.

Mr. Rhys Davies: For 1937?

Mr. Lloyd: The report that is due. The hon. Member can hardly expect us to make a change of a whole year in our arrangements on the spur of the moment.

Mr. Davies: Why not?

Mr. Lloyd: Because it would require very careful consideration. On the question of the buildings, the hon. Member made a very practical comment when he asked whether it would not be better to have entirely new buildings. The real position is this. There is this large building at Hollesley Bay, and it is proposed to use the existing building as a central administrative block, and for the classes and the accommodation of one of the houses. All the other houses will be new buildings. I think that is a practical solution. With regard to staff, the hon. Member asked what would be the position of the London County Council staff at Hollesley Bay. We are in communication with the London County Council at the present time and discussing with them how many of the existing staff we can take on. All those who are suitable for the new work will be kept on. The hon. Member also asked about training. He had in mind the staff particularly concerned with the security side, the specific Home Office side, as opposed to the technical side, the work of fruit farming, and so on. They will be trained very carefully, mostly at the other Borstal institutions and will be drafted in as occasion offers.
Perhaps the most important point is the type of boy and the question whether we shall confine ourselves entirely to boys coming straight to Borstal institutions, or whether there will be a certain number of absconders from Home Office schools. There are a certain number of absconders from Home Office schools, but the number is not very large: it would not mean

much to allocate them to one particular Borstal institution, and they fall to be considered in the general plan of the allocation of the boys to the various institutions. Therefore, the type of boy will not be entirely confined to those who go straight to Borstal institutions, but as opportunity offers in the ordinary course of administration there will be a certain number of boys that come from Home Office schools.

Mr. Kelly: The hon. Member speaks of absconders from Home Office schools going to Borstal. Are we to understand that boys and girls can be sent to Borstal without an order of the court?

Mr. Lloyd: I understand that an order of court is required; it is a well recognised and established procedure. Let me say a few words about the name "institution," which was raised by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson).

Mr. Benson: I was not worrying about the word "institution," but rather the institution itself.

Mr. Lloyd: I appreciate the hon. Member's point and I think we are all agreed in regard to that, and the speech of my right hon. Friend showed it very clearly. In order to mark that tendency, my right hon. Friend said that the new place would be called a "colony" and not a Borstal institution. That follows the procedure adopted in regard to Lowdham Grange and the North Sea Camp.
With regard to the character of the boys and girls who are to go to this colony, they will, broadly speaking, be those who are considered suitable for a system of minimum security. Of course rather the same problems arise as arose in the case of Lowdham Grange where the regime is very much one of minimum security also. This colony will follow Lowdham Grange in that respect. Undoubtedly in the beginning boys have to be selected, with some care, for this type of Borstal institution. Obviously, more risks are run with boys of a certain character than with those of another type. If we take the view that, as time goes on, we may get a stronger tradition in the colony we can afford to be rather freer in our choice. Very often there are borderline cases which might not respond to the atmosphere of the colony in the beginning but which would respond later when there is a stronger tradition in the colony.
The question of psychological treatment was raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton. I do not think it would be in order to say very much upon it for this reason, that there would not be necessary any specific technical organisation or, for example, space in this new colony, as psychological treatment is generally centralised in the boys' prison at Wormwood Scrubs. It is carried out there and has been going on for some time. We expect a report shortly upon that work, and the whole subject can then be considered.

Mr. Benson: Is it not the case that this work is confined to the ordinary prisoners and does not touch the Borstal boys who merely pass through Wormwood Scrubs and spend only about three weeks there?

Mr. Lloyd: The work has both those functions. The boys do pass through Wormwood Scrubs as a central clearing house, and if it is thought that they need special psychological treatment they stay there. Also, when the boys have gone out to the various institutions, if it is thought, as a result of experience in the institutions, that they would benefit by special psychological treatment, they go back to Wormwood Scrubs where they get the benefit of a very high degree of specialised technical skill. I may say, in passing, on that aspect of the matter that although we all know now that a certain number of people do respond to psychological treatment in an extraordinary way, there are, on the other hand, a certain proportion of failures as must be expected. Also the mass of boys unquestionably do not need psychological treatment but will respond to the ordinary commonsense instructional methods that are used at the Borstal institutions as a whole.
In any case, we have now a scheme under which a certain proportion of the housemasters in the Borstal institutions—and this, of course, applies to the colony—are trained at the Institute of Industrial Psychology in vocational guidance. Boys will have to that extent psychological training. Admittedly it is not deep psychological analysis—nevertheless it is a very useful side of psychological training. We welcome this new colony as a place in which experiments can be carried out—experiments no doubt in the direction of increased responsibility for the boys although I would not like to go as far as

to come down definitely in favour of the system technically known as "self-government." The hon. Member for Westhoughton said he thought that we were falling behind in this matter. I would remark that a recent German report on the question of the treatment of young criminals said that anybody who wanted to study that matter to the best advantage should go to England and study the Borstal system.

Mr. Lansbury: When does the hon. Gentleman expect to make a start? Has any date yet been fixed?

Mr. Lloyd: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this is a token Vote and is to enable us to go ahead with the actual technical question of buying. I do not think that in the immediate future we expect to do more than that.

Mr. Lansbury: What I wished to suggest was that very often the Home Office invite Members of the House to visit places which are much less worthy of attention than this, and perhaps it would be a good thing if an opportunity were given to hon. Members to visit the colony.

Mr. Lloyd: I understand that 1st April is the date of handing over, and I gather from my right hon. Friend that there is an invitation to hon. Members to visit not only this colony but all Borstal institutions.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Prison Commissioners and of the Prisons in England and Wales.

APPROVED SCHOOLS, ETC., ENGLAND AND WALES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £61,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for Grants in respect of the expenses of the Managers of Approved Schools in England and Wales; the expenses of Local Authorities in respect of children and young persons committed to their care; and the expenses of the Councils of Counties and County Boroughs in respect of Remand Homes.

5.8 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare: This Vote is in some respects very similar to the last one, but it deals with boys and girls of a younger age. Here, as in the case of the boys and girls of Borstal age, we find that there is an increase in numbers in recent years. That increase has been due to much the same reasons as those which I have described to the Committee in the case of the Borstal young people, namely, the Children Act; the growth in the population; the fact that the country's interest is much more keenly stirred by questions of this kind than it was in the past, and that as a result, greater use has been made of the treatment in the approved schools.
The first sub-head of this Vote deals with the increase needed in the actual schools. We want more places in the schools and we want more schools. I have had more than one opportunity since I have been at the Home Office of discussing this question with the local authorities. We have made it clear to them that we would be very glad if they would provide greater accommodation than exists at present. Sub-head A deals with the additional accommodation that has been provided during the last few months. Sub-head C covers a very interesting development. Until 1933, local authorities had no locus standi in questions of this kind. Children if they were boarded out were boarded out either with friends or other private persons or with institutions. In recent months we have drawn the attention of the local authorities to the power which they now have themselves of boarding out children in suitable homes. I sent out a circular on the subject in December and I have sent out another circular to-day. We found that while some local authorities were making use of this new power, others did not seem to realise its importance and had not yet started to use it.
My advisers tell me that one of the most frequent causes which lead to these children being sent to approved schools is the fact that they have a broken home life. There is very often nothing particularly criminal or malicious about the case, but it happens that the home life of the child has been broken up, it may be only for a short time, and that what is wanted is not so much a long period in an institution as family life in a private house. What we are trying to do is to

draw the attention of the local authorities to the fact that this is a better way of dealing with many children. As I say, I have sent out a further circular on the subject only to-day and I hope one result of this Debate will be to emphasise the importance of getting these children into respectable homes and finding substitute homes for them, whether for a short or a long time.

Mr. Ede: If a local authority reaches the conclusion that an order of the court sending a child to an approved school is not as satisfactory a way of dealing with the child as boarding out in the manner which the right hon. Gentleman has just described, can the local authority vary the order of the court?

Sir S. Hoare: I think I had better leave that question to the end of the Debate. Let me again emphasise the importance of this new development. It is important in two ways. First it is a better way of dealing with many children; and, secondly, though these children may be very well treated in these boarding-out homes it is cheaper from the point of view of the taxpayer than if they were sent to approved schools. Both those points are important. It is, therefore, desirable that this power should be used wherever it can be safely and properly used. One of the reasons for Sub-head (c) is that more money is being spent in this direction, and I think it is money which hon. Members will think is very well spent.

Mr. George Griffiths: Suppose a boy is taken from his parents and goes into the home of a foster parent; his parents, I presume, will have to help towards his keep and then he will go back to his own home?

Sir S. Hoare: Yes, if his own home is a suitable place. The court has power to order the parents to contribute towards the expenses of maintaining the boy.

Sir J. Withers: Will there be any strict rules as regards supervision?

Sir S. Hoare: Yes, certainly. There is an effective organisation for that purpose. I can assure my hon. Friend that we have that point very much in mind.
In regard to remand homes, there again there has been a considerable extension in recent times. We need remand homes for several purposes. We need them for the custody of young people; but we need


them most of all for the purposes of inquiry. I have been to one or two of these remand homes—I opened one the other day at Hull—and I was much impressed with the value of these homes for the type of investigation to which more than one hon. Member has already alluded. During the time a child is in a remand home there can be the most careful medical and general investigation into the case, with the result that better advice is available to the court as to the best kind of treatment. If hon. Members have visited some of the newer remand homes they will realise the advantages of this kind of investigation, and that the subsequent treatment of the child is more sympathetic, more intelligent and more likely to be successful than if we had not had so thorough an investigation into the child's character and general surroundings.
I am glad to say that local authorities are more and more building remand homes and developing the work in them. That is the reason for asking the Committee for this Supplementary Estimate. It shows that this work is developing. We regard it as very useful, and I am convinced that we shall find in the end that the expenditure is an economy, that the money has been well spent, and that by means of the development of this system of remand homes, by means of a greater variety and a greater number of approved schools, we shall be saving money by preventing young people from drifting into crime. Quite apart from the moral side of the problem it will prove to be an economy from the point of view of the State. After all, crime is one of the most expensive features of civilised life, and I believe we shall find in the end that we are saving money rather than spending more money. With this explanation I hope the Committee will approve the Supplementary Estimate.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
Again I am moving a reduction mainly for the purposes of discussion. The right hon. Gentleman has taken us into a little wider field than on the last Vote. We are now dealing with children and approved schools. In the first place, it must be understood that while there is a considerable increase in the number of children being dealt with by the Home

Office, we must not run away with the idea that child behaviour is worse because of the figures which have been given to us recently. I sat some years ago on the Departmental Committee which dealt with juvenile delinquency. It was the committee which made the recommendations on which the Children Act was based. I learned more by sitting on that committee than I have during the whole time I have been in the House of Commons. There is nothing to startle anybody in the increase of the figures which have been given, because of one important consideration. Up to the passing of the Children Act a child of seven was supposed to know the difference between right and wrong. We changed that and raised the age to nine in the Act of 1935. That distinction made a difference in the figures which were shown later on.
In this Supplementary Estimate a new category of child is being dealt with, that is the child which comes under what is called care and protection, as distinct from a child who is supposed to have committed an offence. This, I think, is the best part of the work of the Home Office, and a tribute should be paid in passing to the staff of the children's branch for the good work that is being done for these little ones who have committed no wrong. A considerable number of the children covered by this Vote are children of parents who have quarrelled, some have never seen their fathers, and some are children of parents who are in gaol. These little ones have committed no wrong, they simply require care and protection, and I trust that the Home Office will press on local authorities that this type of child ought not to be sent to an approved school at all, but should be put into the ordinary family life of foster parents.
That is the main plea I want to make. But I also desire to raise again the question whether the Home Office cannot proceed to do something to classify these children. If there is one thing doctors and schoolmasters in these schools will tell you it is that the gulf between the mentality of one child and another is simply tremendous. Some of them are mentally deficient, mentally backward; some of them are very bright and, indeed, some of the most wicked little chaps are the cleverest very often. We must, I think, bear that point in mind. I hope that in the extension of the provisions for


these children the Home Office will apply itself to this matter, and I make that appeal to the Government. The Under-Secretary in replying on the last Vote quoted a German expert who said that if you want to see modernity and up-to-dateness in prison reform you have to go to England. Since when has he been converted by any German? I can understand a Frenchman making such a declaration and convincing him, but the Under-Secretary knows full well that there are a few countries in Europe which classify these little ones according to their mentality.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order, order.

Mr. Davies: Yes, I know.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is a question which the hon. Member can argue on a later occasion.

Mr. Davies: I was afraid that I was overstepping the Rules of Order and I will confine myself strictly to the Vote. The Secretary of State when introducing the Estimate almost made us believe that remand homes were places where you sort out children as if they were parcels in the Post Office. Quite frankly, remand homes are often there because there are no approved schools to which to send them. Hon. Members on this side feel rather strongly on the question of keeping these children in remand homes, and we insist that as their numbers increase the Home Office should become more active and provide proper places in which to receive them. We ought to be told today how many children there are in the remand homes waiting for admission to approved schools. I should not be surprised to hear that the number ran into a thousand. When the courts have decided upon the training which these children ought to be given, they are kept in remand homes instead of being sent to the institutions to which the court has decided that they should be sent. I think that of all the problems confronting hon. Members in connection with the work of the Home Office, this is probably one of the most important.
In spite of the criticisms which I have made, I will conclude by observing that there has been a great improvement in the treatment of these children. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) will pardon me if I emphasise

the question of the territorial and geographical location of these new schools. I would not like to see all of them congregated in one place, so that children from Lancashire were sent down to Kent, or, what would be more objectionable than anything else, children from Glamorgan sent to Cheshire. I think the Under-Secretary ought to give us some idea of the location and also some information as to how far the children are sent from their homes to the schools.
A very gratifying thing about the treatment of these children now is that they are allowed to go home to visit their parents, and I believe it is true to say that in many cases, once the children have visited their homes, they want to go back again to the schools for further training. That is stated in a recent report. If that be true, then there has been a great change in the treatment of these children. Of course, hon. Members on this side want this money to be spent and want to support the Home Office in the excellent work which they are doing; but I assure the Under-Secretary that we are not satisfied with having these Votes before us year after year—for this is not the first occasion—while there is a continuance of these remand homes and a shortage of accommodation in the schools for these children. The Under-Secretary will have to deliver a very eloquent speech to-day if he wants to secure this Vote without a Division.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Benson: I suspect that it would be out of order for me to reply to some of the details raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) on the last vote, so I will not attempt to do so. I notice there has been a very large increase in the amount of this Vote, which has more than doubled in four years, and that increase has been much more rapid than the increase in the number of children sent to approved schools. Am I correct in assuming that the present amount includes heavy capital charges, that is, that where an approved school is built, the Treasury bears one-half of the capital cost? If that is not the case, it is difficulty to explain why, with an increase in the number of children from 6,500 to about 10,000, there should be


an increase in the total cost from £220,000 to £480,000.
I was glad to hear the Home Secretary stress the importance of the courts dealing with children under the care and maintenance provision in preference to sending them to approved schools. It is unquestionable that, particularly in the case of small children, the children should go into homes and not into institutions, because the psychological development of the child demands a parent, even if it be only a foster parent. The Home Secretary also pointed out that the desirable type of treatment is cheaper than the less desirable type. I would like to carry that argument a step further. Under Sub-head A, which deals with approved schools, there is another category, special schools, at least four of which receive grants under this Sub-head. These special schools are for backward children and border-line cases of mentally defective children. That brings us to the question of the child guidance clinics, since a very large number of the special schools work in contact with those clinics. If a child has a satisfactory home and if the child responds to the influence of the child guidance clinic, it is not necessary to take him away from his home. Moreover, the cost is lower. The method of dealing with these children through the child guidance clinic is better than either of the other two methods.
I will give the Committee some details of the costs of the various methods of treatment. If a child is sent to an approved school, it costs approximately £86 per annum, and the child remains there, on an average, for nearly two years. To board a child out costs £39 a year. The cost of treating a child in the London Child Guidance Clinic is £8 15s., not per annum, but per child. Therefore, where a child can be treated by the child guidance clinic, there is the hope not merely of saving about £160 per child, but the hope that it will be possible to get rid of the child's delinquency without taking him away from his home.
I was glad to hear that the Home Secretary had been bombarding children's courts with circulars, pointing out the advantage of boarding the children out over sending them to approved schools; but I am not sure that circulars are enough. There is no need for me to remind hon. Members of what happens to most of the

circulars that are sent to them, for hon. Members are experts in dealing with circulars. The fact that the Home Office send out circulars and that in many cases those circulars produce no result, suggests that a more intimate connection is necessary. In the last Report of the Prison Commissioners, the Medical Commissioner complained that no notice was taken of his circulars. If the superior courts do not take any notice of circulars, I am sure that the summary courts do not. Why cannot the Home Office get into personal touch with the courts? Why do they not send representatives to watch the courts at work? The presence of such a representative would not be resented, but welcomed. The magistrates, who are trying to do a difficult job without any training, for dealing with children undoubtedly is a difficult job, would probably be only too glad to have advice from a Home Office expert. I am convinced that if such a course were followed it would lead to the treatment of the children being far more suitable and economical than at present.
The Home Secretary referred to the large number of broken homes from which the children came. When a home is broken up, when there is a bad home or when there are immoral surroundings, the child has to be taken away; but from the Appropriations-in-Aid I gather that quite a number of these children do not come from that type of home. There has been a very big increase in these Appropriations-in-Aid, which are sums paid by the parents. Broadly speaking, although it is not an absolute rule, when children come from homes where the parents can be assessed for weekly sums for the maintenance of their children, the homes are not like those described on page 44 of the report dealing with children. Any hon. Member who reads the appalling list of 150 homes given in the report will realise that the vast bulk of those homes do not contribute to the Appropriations-in-Aid. The homes which contribute are relatively good ones, and when a child comes from such a home, every effort should be made to keep him there. This should be done by seeing that the magistrates are advised to send such a child to a child guidance clinic for treatment or to put him on probation. The Home Office have a great deal to do in connection with the education of the justices who sit in the children's courts.


That cannot be done by circulars, and I hope that the Home Office will take some steps to see that the children's courts receive personal advice from Home Office experts.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Morgan: I would like briefly to put one or two questions to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. In the first place, I suppose I am right in assuming that, since the Committee is being asked to vote an increase of £55,000, there will not only be additional buildings, but some improvement in the services and in the personnel of the teaching and supervisory staff. I think that possibly there might be some improvement in the inspection of these schools. I am not over-anxious to have a multitude of inspectors, but I think it would be a good thing if some competent inspectors visited the schools now and again in the same way that inspectors go to ordinary schools. I should like a guarantee that we are to have better supervision and more skilled teaching. We assume that we are getting everything in these schools as nearly perfect as the Home Office can make them, but I am sure the Under-Secretary of State will acquit me of any unfairness, because I have already given him notice of certain matters that I wish to raise, when I ask him whether the Home Office are satisfied at the way in which these things are carried out in the different schools. I have given him some particularly glaring examples of schools conducted in a way in which they should not be conducted.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Member will have to raise that question on the main Estimates.

Mr. Morgan: Then I will get back to my other theme, and say that I think we might take a leaf out of the Board of Education's book, and if we cannot get some co-operation with the Board of Education—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that this is not the appropriate occasion on which to raise that question either.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I do not know whether the Under-Secretary of State could at this stage give me the reply to the question which I put to the Home Secretary with

regard to the point which he was making in his speech as to the power of a local authority to vary an order of the court where it seemed more desirable that a child should be boarded out than that it should be sent to an approved school.

Mr. Lloyd: It is only the court that has that power.

Mr. Ede: I was afraid that that was so, because that seriously affects the line of argument that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was adopting. I suppose the real remedy would be for the local education authority, if they were to do what this Committee may not do, namely, to criticise a magistrate, to suggest to the master of the approved school that the court had made an error, and to ask that when the child had been there for some time, it should be released on a licence which would involve boarding out. I take it that that would be the way for the local authority to get round the difficulty created by the order of the court. I share very fully the view of the Home Secretary that in a good many cases boarding-out is preferable to committal to an approved school, and I feel, as one who is a member of both a juvenile court and an education committee that has to deal with the provision of approved schools, that the approved school ought to be the last resort in dealing with these children.
I hope that when the juvenile court is considering what to do with a child, it will pay particular attention to the advice that it may receive from the probation officer, the head of the remand home at which the child will probably have been staying, and the teacher who has had an opportunity of observing the child in its normal school life up to the time when it has come under the observation of the court. I am sure that what is wanted in these cases, in the court as well as in the approved school, is an individual consideration of each case and a refusal to generalise unnecessarily with regard to any particular child or alleged type of child that is brought in front of the court. I happen to be a governor of one of these 14 new schools mentioned on page 18, and I am sure, from the little observation that I have been able to carry on there during the few months of the current financial year, that several children have been sent there who might


with far greater advantage to themselves and to the community have been boarded out, at less expense and with a greater possibility of individual treatment. After all, in a reasonably small family, the child is more likely to be living a normal life where it can receive attention under normal conditions than in the best regulated school where it is living under school conditions and, quite frequently, under institutional conditions.
I also want to deal with the question of the remand homes, especially for girls. I think that the Home Office will have to give very serious consideration to a better grading of the remand homes, because the experience that I have had as a member of an education authority is that there is a greater variation in the minds and experiences of the girls who are sent to remand homes than there is in the case of the boys. Although we have had a remand home open for only a very few months, we have had two girls there who have rather melodramatically pretended to attempt to commit suicide. I do not think they really meant to do it, but they certainly gave great cause for alarm, and in neither case, I think, was it other than an example of melodrama and of a belief that if they could create a certain atmosphere about themselves, they would be rather differently treated than if they appeared at the court as mere ordinary juvenile delinquents who had not taken their present situation sufficiently to heart. Certainly one girl that we had there, a girl nearly 17 years of age, did present certain moral problems in association with younger girls that made her case exceedingly difficult.
We have not had to face the same trouble with regard to boys in the same degree, but I think there will really have to be, where it is possible, some grading of remand homes, so that even from the first time that a child is sent to a remand home it shall be sent to some place suitable to the grade, and that some of these children who are merely brought in because they are in need of care and protection—and this again applies more to girls than to boys—shall not be brought in contact with the type of child mind with which I have just been dealing. The child in need of care and protection is quite frequently—

The Deputy-Chairman: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Member,

and I think that is a matter for the main Estimates and not for a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Ede: I will not dispute your Ruling, and I am grateful to you, Captain Bourne, for having been so kind to me as you have. I was hopeful that it might have come in under the wording with regard to remand homes on page 18, but I will leave that point. I do not share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) that what the magistrates want is a visit from a Home Office inspector. In fact, I do not know how he is going to get into a juvenile court at all, because the number of people who may be there is strictly limited by Statute, and fortunately Home Office inspectors are not included in the list.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am now quite convinced that, if that question arises at all, it arises on the Home Office Vote.

Mr. Ede: I am very glad to know that. I feel myself that we are at the moment still only in the experimental stages of this work. Undoubtedly, errors are being made, but I believe that the great majority of the people who are interested in the administration of this Act are very zealously trying to get the best possible results out of it, and that such errors as there may have been have been committed out of a desire to do the best that could be done for the children and perhaps on occasion to carry out some experiments by the courts which would be of a reasonably useful type for the benefit of other people. I sincerely hope that, as time goes on, these errors will decrease and that we shall get from this Act the great advantages that its authors hoped from it and that it ought to bring to the country. I can only say that anything that prevents the stigma of a conviction being placed on the child ought to be used to the uttermost, although I wish that on occasion it could be made clear that when a child is placed on probation, it really means probation, and that the visit to an approved school may be the only alternative if those opportunities are not used by the child. This is a very useful piece of legislation. I believe it has done a great deal of good already and that as our experiences accumulate, it will be even more useful to the community than it has been up to the present.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Viant: I want to comment on the innovation that has been adopted by the Home Office in advising magistrates in the juvenile courts to adopt a new procedure, where possible in conjunction with the local authorities, of boarding out those boys and girls who come before them. As a nation we have always been proud of our homes and our family life. It has undoubtedly played a great part in the development of character, and I rather wish that the Home Office could find some ways and means of approaching the magistrates more intimately than by circular. I received a circular myself—

The Deputy-Chairman: I pointed out to a previous speaker that I thought I was mistaken in letting him raise that point, and I also stopped the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). It really comes on the main Home Office Vote, and the hon. Member cannot on this Estimate deal with circulars from the Home Office.

Mr. Viant: I said that, Captain Bourne, by way of preface, in order to lead up to the difficulties with which the magistrates in juvenile courts are confronted at the present time, and—

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot discuss juvenile courts on this Estimate.

Mr. Viant: If juvenile courts are mentioned, it is by reason of the fact that it is preliminary to the consideration of the approved schools and remand homes. I welcome this increased expenditure in connection with the remand homes, for this reason, that in the county of Middlesex alone we are sadly short of remand homes. I know of case after case in the Willesden Court where we have been held up, the probation officer not knowing where to place boys and girls by virtue of the fact that there were no remand homes available. I think I should be justified in making an appeal to the Under-Secretary of State this evening to use his good offices to prevail upon the county authorities to see that more remand homes are made available, so that the magistrates and the probation officers shall not be at their wits' end to know where to put these boys and girls for the time being. We invariably find that a number of remand homes are unsuitable for the boys and girls with whom we have to deal. I hope the Under-Secretary

will see that the authorities responsible for the provision of remand homes realise their obligations.
I welcome the innovation of boarding out juvenile delinquents in good homes. The magistrates with whom I am associated in Willesden feel that it is a useful innovation, and I hope that greater publicity will be given to it. I rather fear that a number of education authorities may feel that it will mean greater expenditure being imposed on them. I hope the Home Office will use its influence with the Treasury to persuade it of the point of view that has been placed before the Committee this afternoon, that this is not a waste of expenditure and will ultimately lead to greater economy. Greater economy is to be effected by boarding out juveniles in good homes than by putting them in large buildings such as approved schools. I would also appeal to the Home Office to prevail upon the magistrates to appreciate the good work that can be done by the child guidance clinic as a preliminary to their being placed in homes. The main problem is to understand the psychology of these boys and girls, and if the magistrates can do that they can get a fairly good idea of the cause of the trouble. If they are unable to do it it is difficult to know how to assist the boys and girls and to put them on the road where the best traits in their character will develop and be used to the benefit of the community.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Lansbury: I agree that good homes are the best places to which to send these children, but I am not sure that we always find the best homes. I have had a good deal to do with boarding out children, and my own feeling is that great care is needed, and probably much more inspection of the homes. I should like to ask whether the Home Office is working in co-operation with any of the county authorities which have residential schools, such as the London County Council. I heard the other day that there was a movement afoot to draft into these schools boys and girls who, for one reason or another, had become troublesome and chargeable to the authorities, instead of sending them to some special school. If that is to be done it is an excellent suggestion. I understand the proposition is that the boys or girls should go to a residential school and be treated like all


the other children. If that is being done, I wondered how long it has been in operation and what has been the result. I have not been able to verify the matter, but I would like to know whether that is the case, because if a child is boarded out it has to go to school, and it usually goes to an ordinary elementary day school.
The more these children can be mixed with other children the better. If it is impossible to get sufficient homes for them, it would be well to use ordinary county residential schools, which used to be called Poor Law schools. There ought to be co-operation to that extent between the local authorities and the Home Office. I am not bothered about whether this would be a saving or not. I am concerned that, as far as possible, what are called the bad children or the children who are likely to become bad should not be segregated. It is better that they should be mixed up with others. I do not believe that as a rule, although there are exceptions, their influence would be injurious to other children

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: I would like to give as much satisfaction as I can to the Committee without trespassing on the Rules of Order. I think there is broad agreement about this subject and about the question of boarding out. Everyone agrees that, where it is possible, the circumstances of natural home discipline are best. That does not mean that every case is suitable, because some cases are really difficult and need the more rigid instruction of an institution. Anybody who has the slightest experience of remand homes or of juvenile courts knows that some of the offences committed by the children are things that quite a lot of us have done in the past. The younger ones particularly ought to be looked upon with an understanding eye, especially in care and protection cases where is is a question of trying to substitute for the lack of a good home something that will take its place. Obviously, to give them a good home is the best thing to be done.
I would like to make a point which is strongly felt in the Home Office. It really develops from the point I have made that some offences are very slight and develop more from the difficult circumstances in which the child lives than from any real vice in its nature. There is not much difference fundamentally between

children who are in need of care and protection and children who have actually committed a small offence. The children in the care and protection class are those in bad circumstances who are, no doubt, just about to commit an offence if the process goes a little further, whereas those who have just committed an offence are those who have just crossed the border line.

Mr. Silverman: Is not the fact that in the case of some of the children who are care and protection cases, no fault on the part of the children is alleged?

Mr. Lloyd: I agree. There is a legal distinction between the two classes, but from a common sense point of view, there is no distinction. The Committee has been anxious to know whether our methods of pressing the importance of boarding out and seeing that those methods are sufficiently and properly adopted are satisfactory. We have sent out circulars to magistrates, but we have also adopted other methods. We have had conferences of magistrates and we are in intimate touch with the Magistrates' Association. A number of magistrates also come to consult us at the Home Office, and two were there this morning asking advice about this matter. It would, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said, be an action, although well-intentioned, which was liable to be misunderstood, if we sent representatives of the Home Office to the juvenile courts. We had better keep off that.
We have sent out a circular to-day to the local education authorities who play a keen part in the question of boarding out, perhaps even more than they do in regard to general methods of treatment of children coming from juvenile courts, because they have a two-fold function in regard to it. First, they can suggest to the court—when they are giving the history of a child—methods of treatment, which may or may not be adopted by the court. Therefore they have the first say. Second, the court cannot just dump children on to the local education authority as fit persons to be boarded out without the consent of the authority. Therefore, the authority has another important position in that it can make plain to the court that it has to be consulted. We have sent out a circular to-day to the authorities emphasising the


importance of adopting this procedure of boarding out in proper cases.
The other question concerned remand homes. I agree, and I know that my right hon. Friend does, that although useful work is done in remand homes it is not desirable that children should be kept in them for too long. Children have been kept in remand homes too long in recent times because of the congestion in the schools, following on the Children and Young Persons Act recently passed. I think the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) did exaggerate the position a little when he feared that there might be thousands of children in remand homes, and asked the actual figure. I am glad to be able to tell him that it is not an alarming figure. Each quarter a census is taken of the boys and girls waiting in remand homes and at the end of December there were 310.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is the number increasing?

Mr. Lloyd: No, decreasing, and it is quite a substantial decrease on the position earlier in the year, when I think a peak point was reached. Of those 310 97 were Roman Catholics, a point which should be noted, because the Roman Catholics are particularly keen to get children into their own schools as early as possible, and they are making increased provision for them. I think this Committee will be pleased that the figure is not so large as some of us might have feared, and that it is definitely tending downwards.

Mr. Ede: Can the hon. Gentleman say how long it is, when a Roman Catholic boy has been sent by the court to an approved school, before he can find a place in one? I heard only yesterday of a Roman Catholic boy who has been waiting 72 days for a place in a Roman Catholic approved school.

Mr. Lloyd: I could not say off-hand how long it is before a Roman Catholic boy can get into a school. There may be difficulties in a particular case, but I think the case the hon. Member mentions must be an exceptional one. I understand that the Roman Catholics are now very busy making provision for further approved schools, and perhaps it will be better if we leave it at that point, because they are doing their best.

Mr. Rhys Davies: In view of the very clear explanation of the hon. Gentleman, especially in relation to the hundreds in remand homes, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £61,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for Grants in respect of the expenses of the Managers of Approved Schools in England and Wales; the expenses of Local Authorities in respect of children and young persons committed to their care; and the expenses of the Councils of Counties and County Boroughs in respect of Remand Homes.

CLASS VI.

STATE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the State Management Districts, including the Salaries of the Central Office, and the Cost of Provision and Management of Licensed Premises.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Are we not to have a little explanation of this Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. Lloyd: I was about to offer a word of explanation, but it is really a very simple point indeed. Owing to the improvement of trade generally and the fact that more money is circulating in Carlisle, the trade done in the public houses belonging to the State-managed scheme is increasing. It is simply a question of buying a few more brewing materials and things of that kind—of increasing the ordinary trade supplies.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I do not think an item of this kind ought to be allowed to pass without a few words from this side of the Committee. On all the benches there are greater experts than I am on this particular topic. The hon. Gentleman said that additional provision is required owing to the increase in the trade. What trade does he mean—the biscuit trade, or the flour milling trade, or does he refer to the drink trade? It is stated that additional provision is required owing to the increased poundage of rates, levied


in Carlisle and the Scottish areas. Will he tell us whether there has been an increase in the number of public houses, or whether the managers of the scheme have decided to increase the trade within the existing public houses?

The Chairman (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member has only to look at the statement accompanying the Vote to see that this refers to the purchase of stores and supplies.

Mr. Davies: I am glad of that explanation, because from the way in which the Home Office puts down these Votes I did think that the term "maintenance of premises" might include some extension of the houses. There is a very pertinent point which I wish to make. I notice that this scheme extends into two countries, one being England and the other Scotland.

The Chairman: That has been the case for a long time.

Mr. Davies: Although it has been the case for a long time, as those words appear here I think we are entitled to know what is the difference in the rates which are levied.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: This Supplementary Estimate is not confined to the provision of intoxicating liquor but is also for necessary stores of food and other non-intoxicants. The houses in the scheme pay rates and taxes in the same way as in the case of a private trader, and it is necessary to provide an additional £20,000 over and above the original expenditure on account of the increase of the poundage of the local rates. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this Supplementary Estimate does not provide for an increase in the number of public houses.

Mr. Paling: Does this sum provide anything for advertisements? In the last year or two there has been a lot of advertising of beer, and I should like to know whether the State has been advertising this business.

Mr. Lloyd: I understand that none of the money in the Supplementary Estimate was used for that purpose.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Mathers: I should like to ask whether the £18,000 in respect of the purchase of stores, etc., and the maintenance

of premises includes anything for the furnishing and equipment of the Queen's Hotel at Silloth, which was taken over some time ago. I understood that considerable expenditure was to be incurred in bringing that important hotel up to date, and making it a really great adjunct to the facilities for holiday-makers in that area. I might make this comment upon the increased poundage of the rates levied in Carlisle and in the Scottish area, that for a number of years the Carlisle rates ought to have been raised, but the majority on the local council held off raising rates. Some of us believe they did so because of the fear that they might lose their majority and would leave the raising of the rates to their Labour successors. Finally, they found it necessary themselves to raise the rates, and that is why there has been an increase. But the question I put is whether the £18,000 includes anything for the Queen's Hotel.

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir, that was covered in the original Estimate, and it is not necessary to include anything in this Supplementary Estimate.

Resolved—
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the State Management Districts, including the Salaries of the Central Office, and the cost of Provisions and Management of Licensed Premises.

CLASS I.

GOVERNMENT HOSPITALITY.

Motion made, and Question proposed
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for a Grant in Aid of the Government Hospitality Fund.

6.26 p.m.

The First Commissioner of Works (Sir Philip Sassoon): One of my predecessors who administered the Government Hospitality Fund on its inception in 1908 urged that national hospitality would lose all its utility and half its charm if the details of it were continually being discussed, and so I hope that I shall be able to explain, without going into details, why I have to ask for an extra £5,000. The framing of an Estimate for Government


hospitality is always a difficult matter, because when the Estimate is framed very little is known of what national entertaining will have to be done over the period and in the present circumstances the difficulty was enhanced by the fact that the period covered the Coronation. Every care was taken to make allowance for unusual contingencies, but certain factors did contribute to an under-estimation of the expenses.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: What was the exact figure last year?

Sir P. Sassoon: I will get that figure for the right hon. Gentleman. The figure for this year is considerably larger because it was to cover the period of the Coronation and also the Imperial Conference. The Imperial Conference was attended by more delegates on this occasion and they stayed longer than they did in 1930, and owing to the pressure on the hotels in London at the Coronation it was more difficult to find them accommodation. There was £4,000 surplus over from 1936. In regard to unknown functions, the aggregate expenditure for the previous years, which formed the basis of the Estimate under this heading, was considerably less than the sum which was actually required this year. That was principally due to the interest which was centred in this country at the time of the Coronation and the fact that the delegations stayed longer than was expected, being very anxious to discuss certain matters. In addition to that, the state of foreign and trade affairs has been more active than usual, and more Government entertainment has taken place than in previous years. I would ask the Committee to accept this explanation of why I have to ask for an extra £5,000. I am basing my plea on the fact that it was more difficult than usual to make an estimate of the expenditure required for the year.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Benn: This sum covers the Coronation year; we understand that. Nevertheless the Hospitality Fund has multiplied by four times since last year and yet we are being asked for a further sum of £5,000.

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the reasons why the Fund has been multiplied in the way he suggests.

Mr. Benn: I should say that it has been multiplied by four and a half times, and this £5,000—

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the £40,000, but only the £5,000.

Mr. Benn: I do not wish to traverse any Ruling of the Chair, but, having provided four times as much for hospitality as was provided last year, the Treasury now come forward and ask for an additional £5,000. One understands the special circumstances in which the original sum was asked for; it is well known that it was taken because this was the Coronation year and special charges were to be needed, but it requires some further explanation why, having taken in the original Vote so much more than was needed last year, the Treasury now say that an additional £5,000 is required. I would like to ask the First Commissioner whether any provision is made in the Vote for entertaining King Carol when he comes to this country. If so, that raises rather a different issue.

Sir P. Sassoon: Sir P. Sassoon indicated dissent.

Mr. Benn: If the right hon. Gentleman says that that is not the case I have no further comment to make. There is no such intention? Very well then, I shall not pursue the matter.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Morgan Jones: I understand that King Carol is to be entertained this month, that is to say, before the end of the financial year. In that case, does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate spending public money during this financial year which is not covered in the sum for which he is now asking? Evidently the right hon. Gentleman does not know what the answer is.

Sir P. Sassoon: I am asking for a Supplementary Estimate for the year.

Mr. Benn: Up to 31st March?

Sir P. Sassoon: Yes. I have already spent this money. I am asking for this supplementary sum for an expenditure which has already been incurred.

Mr. Morgan Jones: The right hon. Gentleman now tells us that he has spent this £5,000 before this Committee has approved of it. I ask him again whether, during this month of March—the financial


year ends at the end of the month—he is proposing to ask for money to expend before the end of the year is upon us?

Sir P. Sassoon: I have no knowledge of the visit which has been mentioned.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Benn: The right hon. Baronet cannot get out of it in that way. First of all he tells us that this money has been spent. These Supplementary Estimates usually represent the sum estimated to be needed before 31st March, and therefore the £5,000 would not be expended until the end of the financial year. The Treasury, having made up their prospective accounts to the end of the year and finding themselves short, come and ask for an additional £5,000. We understand that the visit of this monarch is intended before 31st March, and therefore we are asking the right hon. Baronet whether part of this additional sum for which he is asking is caused by the intending visit of King Carol. That is a question which the right hon. Gentleman really must answer. It is no good his saying that he has no knowledge of something which has been in the newspapers. He happens to be the representative in the House of Commons of a Department which is asking us for money.

The Chairman: The question which the right hon. Gentleman is now asking is whether this sum of money is necessary or not, but that does not give him the right to discuss matters for which the Government are not asking for money.

Mr. Benn: If I am out of order, I bow, naturally, to the Chair, but it is the function of this Committee to ask Ministers to tell us what expenditure is for and for them to be cross-examined, if the Committee is not satisfied. That is what the Committee is for. I am not satisfied with what the right hon. Gentleman has told us.

The Chairman: The right hon. Member can only cross-examine the right hon. Gentleman on the subject for which the expenditure of the money is asked.

Mr. Benn: There is no limit to the amount of cross-examination to which Ministers may be subjected in Committee, provided it is in order. I say that I am dissatisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's answers.

Sir P. Sassoon: Perhaps I can make the matter clearer. This money covers, of course, any expenditure which would be incurred before the end of the financial year, in anticipation of the general need. I was not in a position to say whether any part of the expenditure would be used in the way suggested, because I had no information about it.

Mr. Benn: What position are we getting into now? We asked the First Commissioner whether the money was to cover the visit of King Carol, and he told us that it was not. Now he tells us that if there is a visit it will cover it. Therefore this visit comes within the factors which make it necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to come to the Committee and ask for another £5,000. I ask the Committee whether it is desirable that we should spend public money upon dictators who come to this country. I think it is the right occasion on which to say that it is not—although I do not wish to indulge in any remarks about foreign Monarchs who may be the guests of this country. I remember that, before the War, Members of the Liberal party in this House protested very much about a proposed visit of the Tsar of Russia. It is very unsatisfactory that the First Commissioner should tell us that no money is asked for that purpose, and then should tell us that money is required for the purpose.

Sir P. Sassoon: Not specifically.

Mr. Benn: Not specifically? But when the King comes, this is the only fund into which the right hon. Gentleman can dip. Knowing that, the advisers of the right hon. Gentleman have come to the Committee to ask for an additional £5,000 for this and kindred purposes. The Committee has a right to be dissatisfied with the First Commissioner for the type of answer which he has given, particularly when he told us that the money was already spent, whereas, in fact, he is coming down for more money which will not be spent until 31st March. I raise these matters as a protest against entertainments which assist dictatorial personages when oppressing their own democracies. It is time to protest against this type of entertainment which has a definite political character.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. Morgan Jones: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that, in


point of fact, his original answer was inaccurate and that the money has not up to now been spent?

Sir P. Sassoon: I would not like the right hon. Gentleman to be under any misunderstanding. Of course, this Supplementary Estimate carries us over to the end of the financial year. I understood that no particular sum was allocated to any future visit, and that it dealt to a very large extent with expenditure which we had already incurred in the Coronation year.

Mr. Jones: I am sorry, but we get deeper and deeper into trouble about this thing. Now I understand that we are asked for £5,000 extra to carry us to the end of the year. The Government would not ask for £5,000 unless they knew expressly upon what they wanted to spend the money. Now the right hon. Gentleman tells us that he is so in doubt about what the £5,000 is wanted for that it might include expenditure upon the visit of King Carol to this country. We ought to have more explicit information than that. Either this money covers that visit, or it does not. If it does not, the £5,000 is necessary for some other purpose. If it is necessary for another purpose, there can be nothing left for this State visit which we are expecting during this month, if indeed it is to take place. If it comes in the month of April, that will be in the next financial year, and the right hon. Gentleman is all right. The financial year ends at the end of this month, and the right hon. Gentleman will be in an exceedingly difficult position unless he proposes to come later in this month for another Supplementary Estimate to cover the State visit.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Lansbury: This Hospitality Fund is one of the most extraordinary funds that a Minister ever had to administer. The unfortunate First Commissioner of Works who is supposed to administer it has no power over it at all. He is told to put in so much money as an Estimate, but when it comes to saying how it shall be spent he has not the least say at all. When I held that office, the Chief of the Treasury became my secretary because I protested that I would not administer a fund and be responsible for administering it when I had no authority over it whatsoever. The Department of my right

hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn), when he was Secretary of State for India, was entertaining some Princes or other from India when they were over here for conferences. The Department sent in a requisition asking that provision should be made. The First Commissioner had no choice but to make that provision.
I am not trying to defend one of my numerous successors, but only to explain that the First Commissioner cannot answer the question whether anything will be required for the visit of King Carol. I do not know which Minister could answer, whether the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister or who, but when the requisition is made the only responsibility of the First Commissioner will be to issue an order to a certain officer to get everybody ready on the job. I do not think that we can do on this Vote what my right hon. Friend, with whom I agree, would like to see done, that is, not to vote any money for the purpose which has been suggested. The person who can answer the question is the Prime Minister. In my judgment the administration of the Hospitality Fund ought to be overhauled. One person ought to be responsible for it who could settle how much should be spent at a particular time, what brands of wine should be served, whether it should be Empire or foreign and whether it should come out of the cellar where it has been a long time, and so on.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Lansbury: I knew that I was out of order, but I felt as I listened to the rather hefty attack made upon the right hon. Baronet that I would like to point out that I had also been a victim, and a fellow victim with him. My hon. Friends are attacking him vicariously for somebody else, and if they want to stop this expenditure they had better get after the Prime Minister on one of the days when he is here for Question Time.

Mr. Benn: If it is a question whether any of the money is required for this visit, the proper way, surely, is for the money to be voted now, and for the House of Commons to be informed at the time when the money is voted.

Mr. Lansbury: We do not know whether any of it is required for that purpose or not. The Minister who can tell us


whether King Carol is coming and is going to be entertained is not here. I am only calling attention to the idiotic manner in which this fund is dealt with. In my case, it came to the point that I refused to answer about it, because I had no responsibility, and my right hon. Friend who is now Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick - Lawrence) answered for it. So far as I can see, the Government have gone back to the old vicious method of making a man responsible for something for which he is not responsible.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: Presumably this visit is in contemplation, and hospitality is going to be extended—

Mr. Lansbury: The right hon. Gentleman does not know.

Mr. Maxton: No, but I imagine that, had this visit been proposed at the time when my right hon. Friend held the office of First Commissioner, such a proposition would have been brought before the Cabinet.

Mr. Lansbury: I must not divulge Cabinet secrets.

Mr. Maxton: I was always suspicious of a Labour Cabinet, but I should imagine that in some form or other the Cabinet, at some point, would be informed whether such a visit is to take place or not. Probably we shall read about it in the papers. I should have thought that the First Commissioner had a duty to inform his fellow Members whether this visit was in contemplation, and whether hospitality money was to be expended on it, and that it would be his duty to intimate to his fellow Cabinet Ministers that the very strongest objection had been expressed in the House of Commons. It is better that the objection should be taken now, so that the First Commissioner may be fully informed of the attitude of the House of Commons to this sort of thing.
I have no objection to hospitality; I have not the faintest objection to people who come to this country being treated in a decent way; and I should imagine, from what I have heard of the right hon. Gentleman's private hospitality, that he would have a very generous outlook on these matters. I have read in the newspapers

about the lavish way in which he entertains people who visit him in his own private house, but I should imagine that he, as a private individual, may be a little selective about his guests. All that we are asking here is that he should be selective in this matter. When he is called upon to put the money down, he is at least in a position to say, "Before I put this money down for this particular purpose, I want to bring the matter before my fellow Ministers, and to tell them that in the House of Commons there is a large section who have the profoundest objection to any hospitality being offered to this particular monarch at this particular time, having regard to the circumstances that exist in that particular country."

6.51 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: The more I hear of this discussion, the more amazed I am at the financial control of the Treasury and the way in which the Government does its business. I could not help thinking, while my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) was speaking, what a row there would have been in Poplar at this kind of finance. I was for 28 years on a public body, and we indulged in a certain amount of hospitality, but there had always to be an estimate, and the responsible officer would count the cost. The right hon. Gentleman says he has nothing to do with it, that he is only a channel of communication. But someone must make the contracts, someone must get an estimate for entertaining so many people at dinner, or giving a ball or reception. That must be done by some Department. Which Department is it? Is it the Treasury? I see the Financial Secretary with his head on his hand, looking a bit worried. Does he make the contracts?

The Chairman: I have already said that we certainly cannot discuss the general question of hospitality on this Vote, which is only a very small Supplementary Estimate.

Sir P. Harris: With great respect, even in these days, when we think in millions, £5,000 is a considerable sum when it comes to a matter of entertaining in these hard times.

The Chairman: The hon. Baronet will forgive me, but it is a question for me to decide as to whether the proportion of the increase to the original amount is large or not.

Sir P. Harris: It is true that it is only a matter of 12½ per cent., which does not matter in these times, but, before we allow these additional sums to be passed, we ought to have some explanation of why it is necessary to come to the House for an additional sum. We have had no explanation. The right hon. Gentleman talked vaguely about the Coronation, but the Coronation is a long time past, and I should have thought that its bills have long since been paid. I do not wish to distinguish between this monarch and some other monarch. If a monarch is to come here, he certainly should not have to go to a tea-shop for entertainment, but should be entitled to the usual scale of expenditure. But I think we ought to know why this extra sum is required, and why it is necessary to have this Supplementary Estimate.
There was a time in the House of Com-months when Supplementary Estimates were very strongly objected to. There used to be a right hon. Gentleman sitting up on the benches opposite who scrutinised, and asked the House to scrutinise, every extra penny that was required. I know that the Patronage Secretary is very concerned at the disorganisation of his time-table by the large number of Supplementary Estimates. I do not think it is enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say that we must not ask for details because it spoils hospitality to ask why a pound is wanted here or a pound is wanted there. I am all for the State being responsible, but, where the State is responsible, we should not suggest throwing money about without proper scrutiny and without being told some details of why the money is required. At a time like this, when there is great financial stringency, I consider that the House of Commons, as the guardian of the public purse, should be most meticulous in its examination of every luxury expenditure. After all, this is a luxury expenditure, which the House is only justified in passing if it knows why it is required.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Lansbury: I think, Sir Dennis, that in all the circumstances we might, if you will allow me to move it, report Progress in order that we may have a Minister here who can tell us whether the Government expect to entertain this Monarch. I speak with a fellow-feeling for the

present First Commissioner. I went through it over this wretched business. There is nobody here, as far as I can see, who can answer, because I am certain that the arrangement made to get over the difficulty concerning myself does not now operate. I am sure that the present Financial Secretary is not now the Secretary to the Hospitality Fund. That was an appointment made to keep me on the strait and narrow path. But my point is that we want to know whether, in regard to this £5,000 which the Department estimate may be wanted up to the end of this month, they had in mind, when they made the estimate, the coming of King Carol. That is really the point, and I think we ought to report Progress.

The Chairman: Perhaps I ought to tell the right hon. Gentleman that that is hardly the best method of achieving what he wants, because a Motion to report Progress, if carried now, would mean my vacating the Committee Chair altogether, and I do not think that that is what the right hon. Gentleman would desire. Moreover, if the Motion were moved, I should have to put it at once without discussion, in the present circumstances.

Mr. Lansbury: Could I move the adjournment of this Debate? I want to act in some way that will allow the rest of the business to be expedited. We have no wish to stop the Government getting non-contentious business; all that I want to know is what is the best method by which we can hold up this Vote until we can get the explanation we desire. I understand, Sir Dennis, that, if a Motion to report Progress were carried, the whole of the night's proceedings would be at an end so far as these Estimates are concerned. I did not think that that was so, but I do not want to question your Ruling on the matter.

The Chairman: I am a little afraid that the withdrawal of this particular Vote could only be done by the Government. The Government have asked for the Vote, and, unless they withdraw it, the only thing that the right hon. Gentleman can do would be to vote against it.

Mr. Benn: Am I not right in assuming that it is the common practice of the House, in the absence of the Minister who can give definite information, to move to report Progress? I think that that is the


practice of the House, and, therefore, I respectfully submit to you, Sir Dennis, that a Motion by my right hon. Friend to report Progress until the Minister who can answer the question is present is in accordance with the usual practice of the House.

The Chairman: I am afraid it is not my business to say what Member of the Government is or is not responsible. A representative of the Government on the Front Bench moved the Vote. If the right hon. Gentleman persists in moving to report Progress, I must consider

whether I should accept the Motion, but, as I have already said, if I accept it, I shall feel bound to put the question at once without discussion.

Mr. Lansbury: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 104; Noes, 208.

Division No. 112.]
AYES.
[6.59 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Holdsworth, H.
Pritt, D. N.


Adams, O. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hollins, A.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Ammon, C. G,
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Ridley, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Riley, B.


Banfield, J. W.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Barr, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Kirby, B. V.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Benson, G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sexton, T. M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Leach, W.
Shinwell, E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Lee, F.
Silkin, L.


Buchanan, G.
Leonard, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Burke, W. A.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cape, T.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Charleton, H. C.
Lunn, W.
Stephen, C.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
McEntee, V. La T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
MacLaren, A.
Thorne, W.


Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)
Maclean, N.
Thurtle, E.


Ede, J. C.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Tinker, J. J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Tomlinson, G.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maxton, J.
Viant, S. P.


Fool, D. M.
Messer, F.
Walkden, A. G.


Gardner, B. W.
Montague, F.
Walker, J.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watkins, F. C.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Muff, G.
Watson, W. McL.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Westwood, J.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Oliver, G. H.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Groves, T. E.
Owen, Major G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Paling, W.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Hail, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parker, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Parkinson, J. A.



Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pearson, A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Price, M. P.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Crowder, J. F. E.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Culverwell, C. T.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)


Albery, Sir Irving
Carver, Major W. H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Cary, R. A.
Denville, Alfred


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Channon, H.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.


Assheton, R.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Duggan, H. J.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Duncan, J. A. L.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Dunglass, Lord


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Eastwood, J. F.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Colfox, Major W. P.
Eckersley, P. T.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Ellis, Sir G.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Elmley, Viscount


Blair, Sir R.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Emery, J. F.


Boulton, W. W.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Bracken, B.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Brass, Sir W.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Errington, E.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Crooke, Sir J. S.
Findlay, Sir E.


Brown, Col, D. C. (Hexham)
Cross, R. H.
Fleming, E. L.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Crossley, A. C.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.




Furness, S. N.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
McKie, J. H.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col, Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Magnay, T.
Shakespeare, G. H


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Gower, Sir R. V.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Marsden, Commander A.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Mellor, Sir, J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswisk)
Storey, S.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Hambro, A. V.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Hannah, I. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Harbord, A.
Munro, P.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Haslam, Sir J, (Bolton)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Tasker. Sir R I.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Tate, Mavis C.


Hepworth, J.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Higgs, W. F.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Holmes, J. S.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Porritt, R. W.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Procter, Major H. A.
Turton, R. H.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Radford, E. A.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Hulbert, N. J.
Ramsbotham, H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hunter, T.
Rankin, Sir R.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Hutchinson, G. C.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Warrender, Sir V.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Leech, Sir J. W.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Lees. Jones, J.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Liddall, W. S.
Rowlands, G.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Lipson, D. L.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Wragg, H.


Lloyd, G. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Russell, Sir Alexander



MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


M'Connell, Sir J.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Major Sir James Edmondson and


McCorquodate, M. S.
Salmon, Sir I.
Mr. Grimston.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Samuel, M. R. A.



Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for a Grant in Aid of the Government Hospitality Fund.

CLASS VII.

ART AND SCIENCE BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain.

7.10 p.m.

Sir P. Sassoon: The scope of this Vote is contained in the title. It covers, on the one hand, all the works done by my Department in connection with various State art galleries, libraries and museums,

the National Gallery, the Tate Gallery, the Wallace Collection, the Imperial War Museum, as well as two colleges, the Royal College of Arts, and the Imperial College of Science and Technology. On the other hand, it covers a number of laboratories, experimental stations and research stations such as the Government Chemist's Laboratory and the Institutions of the Department of Scientific Research as well as the Royal Society and the Royal Observatory at Edinburgh. Both as to this Vote and the others with which I shall deal it is hardly necessary to explain that each Vote covers not only buildings and engineering but also various incidental expenses, such as cleaning, heating, lighting and furniture, custody of the buildings, etc. It follows, therefore, that certain, but not all, of the explanations of the additional moneys for which I am asking are common to all Votes.
I should particularly like to explain that it has been the normal practice for


several years in relation to the larger Votes, when preparing the Estimates at the beginning of the year, to make a lump sum deduction from the gross total amount for the year coming under the sub-heads for New Works. The reason is that experience has shown that it is seldom possible in practice to complete in that year the programme of work for which provision is made. It is obviously impossible to forecast with absolute accuracy the exact amount of work which it will be found possible to accomplish in the ensuing 12 months. To reduce our programme for the year to that which we feel absolutely certain of accomplishing would probably in many cases lead to loss of valuable time, whereas to include financial provision for everything that we might hope to achieve if circumstances proved uniformly favourable, would result in most years in our budgeting for more than we should, in fact, be able to spend. It has been the practice, therefore, to meet this dilemma by planning the year's work on a reasonable assumption as to the progress, and to equate the risk of casualties and delays by making a lump sum deduction from the gross total of the individual schemes. That method has the result that in some years we have to come back to the House and ask for more. But I think the House would prefer that rather than it should be asked at the beginning of the year for more money than is actually spent.
In the case of this Vote we have this year been able to come nearer to the accomplishment of our original plan than is usually the case, with the result that the lump sum deduction that was made at the beginning of the year has proved to be too much, and I have, therefore, to ask the Committee to restore the deduction made in respect of new work to the extent of £11,000. It remains to explain the balance of £9,000 which goes to make up this Supplementary Estimate of £20,000. This sum of £9,000 comes wholly under sub-head D—"Fuel, gas, electric current and water," and G—"Appropriations-in-Aid." The explanation in both cases would apply not only to this Vote but to all the others. With regard to Sub-head D, the extra provision is necessitated in the main by increases in the cost of coal, gas and the general run of household articles required for cleaning, and also in the increased charges for laundry work. My Department has, for the best reason in the world, keen sympathy

with the consuming public who share their misfortune. As regards electric current, the increase is mainly due to the fact that for the first full year of opening at Lambeth of the Imperial War Museum, and the new library quadrant and the reconstructed North Wing of the British Museum we under-estimated the cost of lighting required. Finally, the shortage in Appropriations-in-Aid is attributable to the fact that a number of schemes, the cost of which would have been recovered from the bodies concerned, have either not yet commenced or have failed to make the progress expected. Payment will, therefore, not come to our aid this year, but will come to be received next year. On the other hand, the delay in these works has resulted in a corresponding saving under other sub-heads.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Viant: The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman will be appreciated by the Committee, I feel sure. I had in mind the need for putting a question to him in respect to the increase of £4,000 in the charge for fuel, gas, electric current and water. I observed the sentiment expressed by the right hon. Gentleman: that, being responsible for the Department, he was able to appreciate the position of the ordinary consumers. That will be welcomed by the Committee. I think the Committee would be interested to Know what the percentage of increase has been. It would be a guide to hon. Members, and they would be able to anticipate what increases they should expect in the other Estimates. Further, I think it is an opportune time to ask, seeing that the Government Departments are large consumers of fuel in general, whether it is the intention of the Government, and more especially of the Office of Works, to associate themselves with the Committee projected by the President of the Board of Trade, with a view to watching over the interests of consumers in general in regard to the anticipated rise in the price of coal?

The Chairman: I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the present moment is opportune for that.

Mr. Viant: Very well. Sir Dennis; I bow to your Ruling. In respect to the increase in the charge for laundry, are the Committee to understand that that is due to an increase in the amount of


laundry work or to an increase in the charges made? We are rather anxious to know what is the trend of wages for those who are catering for the need of Government Departments. The Committee are entitled to a little more explanation in respect to sub-head A which deals with new works, alterations, additions and purchases, and under which an additional £11,000 is required. I note that the progress of the services has been such that it is anticipated that the saving will amount to £9,000. I should be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us something more of the nature of this work. Are these new buildings, or are they only alterations? It would be interesting to know where these buildings will be situated.

The Chairman: It has been explained that all these schemes have been provided for already. It is merely a question now of the rate of progress which is being made.

Mr. Morgan Jones: Is my hon. Friend not entitled, Sir Dennis, to ask where these works are?

The Chairman: I agree that he is entitled to ask that, but his question was far more extensive.

Mr. Viant: Surely, I am entitled to ask the reason for the increase.

The Chairman: I say that it is not an increased expenditure at all; it is merely an advance in the time of payment.

Mr. Viant: Some of it, I submit, is an increase. A saving of £9,000 is anticipated, yet the Committee is asked to give a further £11,000. Also, the title of the sub-head naturally leads one to believe what it says: "New buildings, alterations, additions and purchases." I simply ask for information as to the class of new work: where it would be done, and so on.

The Chairman: I do not want to be unreasonable, but the hon. Member knows that the rules in regard to Supplementary Estimates are very strict. If he realises what the position is, he will see that we cannot discuss these particular works. The only thing that could be discussed would be: to take an example, if a building which was going to cost £5,000, was expected to be only half built during the

year, and, therefore, there was £2,500 deducted from it, but, in the result, more than half the building was done then, and so much more would have to be paid. We cannot go into any details as to the purpose for which this money has been voted.

Mr. Viant: Perhaps this will meet the position. Might I ask, what buildings or what works are in advance of the Department's anticipation? That will give us some idea as to the place of buildings and the types of buildings.

Colonel Nathan: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, might I put this comparatively minor question? In connection with Appropriations-in-aid, there is an item of £750 for "National Gallery: Contribution towards cost of new Postcard Room." Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say what the new postcard room is, and how the new item arises?

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Mathers: The item immediately following that to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred is one of £1,875 as a contribution towards the cost of extension of the National Library of Scotland in Edinburgh. I think there should be some explanation as to why this amount has not accrued to the Treasury during the year, and what the position is with regard to it. This contribution is obviously one that should have come from Scotland. I am not anxious that there should be additional contributions coming from Scotland, but, the item being in the position it is in, makes it pleasing to me, because I think that in the past we have had far too little in the way of subventions and assistance for public institutions of this kind, and museums in patricular. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give an indication as to the reason for this sum appearing in this position in the account.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: I am anxious for the Minister to give some clear indication as to this work that is being engaged in, in respect to the art buildings particularly. I will confine myself to the question of the Tate Gallery, which was mentioned by name without particulars being given. Am I to understand that the money which is required, or has been spent, there, and is mentioned in the


Supplementary Estimate, has been spent on the heating and ventilation of the Tate Gallery in order to preserve the pictures? This matter has been mentioned in the House recently; and we had a promise that more than the sum mentioned would be spent, in order that the pictures might not go to destruction in the way they are doing now.

The Chairman: I do not want to prevent hon. Members asking questions if the Government representative is prepared to answer, even if it is stretching the limits of the Debate. But it is quite clear that that is not a matter to be discussed, and I hope the hon. Member will not go into detail about it.

Mr. Kelly: I do not intend to go into detail; but we had a promise, and I wonder if the figure in the Estimate is in reference to that promise. Can we have some indication that the Commissioner is looking after that?

7.29 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I understand from your numerous Rulings, Sir Dennis, that one cannot deal in any general way with the subject I want to touch upon, which is the increased consumption of smokeless fuel in Government Departments, though I suppose it might be raised under subhead D. I would like the Minister to state, if possible, what proportion of the £4,000 which has been mentioned is used for the purchase of smokeless fuel; or, if he cannot state that, to state whether there is increased consumption of smokeless fuel in Government Departments. There is very little doubt, I think, that smokeless fuel ought to be in general use in all Government Departments as an example to other people. Local authorities are being urged by Government Departments, particularly by the Department of Scientific Research, to eliminate smoke pollution by the greater use of smokeless fuel, and if that is sound advice for local authorities, it is equally sound for Government Departments. I take it that I am entitled to inquire whether, if it has not been done in the past, the Office of Works will in future experiment, or make inquiries in various Government Departments with the object of bringing about the general use of smokeless fuel of one sort or another for the purpose of elminating the smoke-pall which hangs with such detriment over this portion of London.

7.31 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: I wish to confine myself to asking a question with regard to the item of £11,000, the additional sum required under sub-head A for new works, alterations, additions and purchases. Can the Minister say whether, under the heading of purchases, are included purchases of pictures for the National Gallery?

The Chairman: The hon. Lady cannot deal with that point.

Miss Wilkinson: I am only asking for information. I am not anxious to make a point. I do not want to make a discussion at all because I do not want to be ruled out of order. I want to know whether the £11,000 covers the purchase of pictures for the National Gallery or not.

The Chairman: I meant that the hon. Lady could not go into the question of the purchase of pictures.

Miss Wilkinson: Does it cover the purchase of pictures? Surely, the Minister knows what his Vote is for.

7.32 p.m.

Sir P. Sassoon: Perhaps I might explain what the £11,000 really means. I explained just now that a lump sum deduction was made from Vote "A," which is for new works and buildings. This is a lump sum deduction made from the total sum at the beginning of the year. We now come back and say that the lump sum deduction was too big and we want another £11,000, but that sum does not cover pictures. It is for new works, alterations, additions and purchases.

Miss Wilkinson: I take it that there is no money included in that sum of £11,000 to cover the purchase of works of art?

Sir P. Sassoon: The Office of Works does not provide money for the purchase of pictures. That comes under the Treasury.

Mr. Porritt: I would like to know whether the increase of £1,600 in respect of electric current is due to the extension of time accorded to the public for access to the British Museum. I understand that the regulations as to time of access have been altered within recent months.

Mr. Shinwell: I should like to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman with


regard to sub-head D, where it is stated that the cost of fuel has increased. Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the average increase has been over previous years?

Sir P. Sassoon: The average increase of the coal that we consume is about 4s. 3d. a ton, which, of course, includes the rise in freights. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we make our coal contracts from July to July, so that the price of coal in one July remains until the following July, and when we estimate in March, we have to take account of the fact that the freightage of coal may be altered between March and July. Between July to July the cost remains the same, but we have to pay the difference in freightage if it goes up.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the actual increase in the cost of the coal itself apart from freightage, and whether there has been an equivalent increase in respect of smokeless fuel purchased by his Department?

Sir P. Sassoon: I can tell the hon. Gentleman only that as far as we are concerned there has been an increase of 4s. 3d. per ton in respect of coal. One of the ways to avoid smoke pollution is to use smokeless fuel, and we are using smokeless fuel as far as we can in all the boilers in the Whitehall buildings. As far as the possible varieties of coke that can be used in open fireplaces to mitigate the smoke nuisance are concerned, as the hon. Gentleman knows, they have not been produced in very great quantities and the price has been high. The price of coke produced by low-temperature carbonisation has been about 10s. per ton more than the price of ordinary household coal. That is one of the fuels the use of which, in order to avoid smoke in Whitehall, we shall be very glad to avail ourselves if only it can be produced in sufficient quantities and at a reasonable price.

Mr. David Adams: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to make use of coke similar to that used in this House?

The Chairman: I have stretched a point by allowing hon. Members to put questions which are not strictly in order, if the Minister is willing to answer them;

but I cannot allow such questions to develop into discussions which are outside the limits of the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Viant: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reply to the questions which I have asked.

Sir P. Sassoon: I intend to reply. The cost of household articles and laundry has gone up. Laundry charges have increased by 60 per cent., and the price of brushes and other articles has gone up a great deal also. I do not think that that is anything new to the hon. Gentleman. It affects my Department and everybody who has to make purchases. As far as laundry work is concerned, we pay the average prices. The Factory Act has shortened the hours in laundries, and, therefore, additional staff have to be employed, and this has contributed, no doubt, towards putting up prices. I do not know what other information the hon. Gentleman wishes to have about the increases.

Miss Wilkinson: Will it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to supply to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour a list of the increases in the prices of goods which he is buying wholesale which may to some extent guide him when he comes to consider the increase in the price of goods in relation to the incomes of the people.

Sir P. Sassoon: I shall be very glad to give my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour any information which is not already in his possession. The hon. Gentleman will see that we are not proceeding with the new postcard room at the National Gallery. It is not because we would not like to have it there, but we feel that there are many more pressing things required at the moment. That applies also to the extension of the National Library of Scotland. The work is not being started this year, but the appropriate sum will fall within the total of next year.

Mr. Viant: The Committee might be informed of the nature of the buildings, and what buildings are in advance of their anticipated construction.

Mr. Kelly: And what about the preservation of the pictures?

Sir P. Sassoon: In many cases the sums voted in 1936 did not come to fruition, and therefore they were reintroduced in 1937. Perhaps I might give a few details


to the hon. Gentleman, who seems anxious to know the nature of these works. At the British Museum the Library has been reconstructed. At Cardiff, the laboratory which was voted in 1936 was not finished on time, and the sum of £1,555 comes into 1937. There is the National Physical Laboratory, an adaptation, the Royal Scottish Museum, an extension of accommodation, and the British Museum, studio to the National Gallery and works of that nature fall under this Vote. In many cases the items were voted in last year's Estimate and owing to unforeseen circumstances the works were not completed, and therefore the remainder of the money comes in this year.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Mathers: I am glad to think that with regard to the National Library of Scotland, the sum of £1,875 is not an amount that was due from Scotland and had not been paid, for I like to think that my fellow-countrymen pay their debts. The explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given causes me to ask why the extension of the National Library of Scotland is not being proceeded with. I know that we are in process of getting a new building for the National Library, and perhaps that is the explanation. But we should have information as to why the particular extension to the National Library, involving a sum of £1,875, is not being proceeded with at the present time.

Mr. Kelly: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not the item for heating and altering of the Tate Gallery generally was for the purpose of preserving the pictures, questions about which have been raised in this House many times?

Mr. David Adams: Did the Minister indicate that the coke used in the Lobbies of this House is generally for use in other Departments?

The Chairman: I am afraid that I cannot allow the hon. Member to press these questions further as they are quite out of order.

Mr. Adams: On a point of Order. The Minister made a statement on this matter, and I should like to have it clarified.

The Chairman: I expressly said that I had allowed a certain amount of latitude, and I cannot allow this subject to be debated.

Mr. Adams: I take it that I shall have to communicate with the right hon. Gentleman in writing in order to get the information I require.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Benn: Does any of the supplementary sum referred to relate to the extensions of the Tate Gallery which took place last year?

Sir P. Sassoon: I do not really know exactly, but I will inquire.

Mr. Benn: I do not know whether I am in order, but I am interested in this matter. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the question of flood prevention at Millbank is very serious to those who have to live there. Valuable pictures were damaged about 10 years ago. I may be quite out of order. The right hon. Gentleman has only to say that it is not in the Vote and that he cannot give the information now, but if it happens to be in the Vote it would be of great public interest if the right hon. Gentleman could make a statement.

Sir P. Sassoon: It would come under this particular Vote, but I do not think that there is anything in the Supplementary Estimate which applies to anything about which the right hon. Gentleman has asked.

Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman tells us that there is no sum additional to the original sum asked for in respect of the Tate Gallery for any work. He will be aware that only about three weeks ago the Port of London Authority issued a warning to residents and others in the neighbourhood of the Tate Gallery to protect themselves. It would be a very serious thing if flooding attacked the Tate Gallery and destroyed the very beautiful frescoes and—

The Chairman: That does not arise on this Vote.

Mr. Benn: I do not understand. This Supplementary Vote is, I understand, intended as an addition to the amount voted for the year ended 31st March.

The Chairman: Not in regard to any newly arranged or newly intended expenditure. It merely relates to expenditure decided upon a year ago and in respect of which progress has been at a greater rate than was expected. It does not deal with any situation that may have arisen two or three weeks ago.

Mr. Benn: If there is nothing in the Supplementary Estimates in regard to the point I am making, I will not pursue it.

Sir P. Sassoon: I will gladly give the right hon. Gentleman any information that I have.

Mr. Kelly: May I have a reply to the point I raised? I have made several attempts to get a reply.

Sir P. Sassoon: I can only tell the hon. Member that there is nothing in this Supplementary Estimate that affects the Tate Gallery in regard to the matter which he raised. No doubt when we have the money and when we know exactly the best method of employing it, we shall be able to go ahead with that work.

Mr. Mathers: You allowed me, Sir Dennis, to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the National Library of Scotland and to ask why the work was not being proceeded with, I had hoped that he would have been prepared to answer.

Sir P. Sassoon: There had been delay in getting out the plans and therefore the work was not progressing in the way we had hoped, but it will come into next year's Vote.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain.

MISCELLANEOUS LEGAL BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed;
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,350, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for Expenditure in respect of Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, including the whole additional cost of a new Sheriff Court House at Edinburgh.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Mathers: May we have some information from the Minister about increasing the Estimates for the provision of the new Sheriff Court House in Edinburgh? In connection with the Estimate we have just passed we heard that certain work on the National Library of Scotland had not been proceeded with, but it would appear from this Vote, with regard to the Sheriff Court House in Edinburgh, that the work has gone ahead more rapidly than was anticipated, or that the cost has been increased through some cause or other. In view of the fact that the greater part of this Vote is made up of the Item in respect of the new Sheriff Court House in Edinburgh, we are entitled to ask for some indication from the Minister as to what has brought about the increased amount of £6,350.

Sir P. Sassoon: The new Sheriff Court House in Edinburgh was completed in October of last year. It was three months late because very bad weather was experienced. As a result, the work had to be extended over that period and the increased expenditure was £6,350.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,350, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938 for expenditure in respect of Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, including the whole additional cost of a new Sheriff Court House at Edinburgh.

OFFICE OF WORKS AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £81,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. Viant: On this Estimate, Item A, Salaries, etc., there is a saving on vacant posts amounting to £16,700, but there is an item of £24,000 for overtime. We ought to have an explanation of those items. It is rather deplorable that there should be an expenditure of £24,000 for overtime when we have nearly 2,000,000 people unemployed. It should be the purpose and function of Government Departments, where work is available, to endeavour to spread the work out and


to absorb as many of the unemployed as possible. I admit that there are occasions when that is almost impossible, but we are entitled to some explanation why there should be this enormous expenditure on overtime. When an ordinary individual is receiving his or her week's wages or salary, that should be sufficient to enable the recipient to live a reasonable life. No one should be expected to work overtime, and Government Departments ought to give a lead in the right direction. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give a satisfactory explanation of the reason for this vast expenditure on overtime.

7.55 p.m.

Sir P. Sassoon: I very much regret the necessity for overtime. I would far prefer that we should be able to engage the additional staff that we need, but this is a case of professional staff, architects, engineers and surveyors, and owing to the present great activity in those professions it is impossible for us to get the number of these people that we want. I hope that we shall be able to improve the situation in the course of this year, and the more we can improve it the more delighted I shall be. Overtime is very disagreeable and, naturally, one would like to avoid it, but in this particular case we have not been able to get all the staff we require. With regard to the vacant posts, the saving has arisen because we have not been able to engage the people we need for the posts. Therefore, the posts are vacant.

Mr. Viant: Is the right hon. Gentleman not able to give us a little more assurance. If he or I were engaged in ordinary commercial work and we were in charge of a department and we permitted this uneconomic expenditure to continue, I am inclined to think that the board of directors would ask whether it would not be better for us to seek another situation. Overtime is always uneconomic.

Sir P. Sassoon: Yes, but we cannot always help it.

Mr. Viant: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to inform the Committee that his Department has already taken steps to ensure that this overtime will be reduced? His excuse is that there is a shortage of professional men. Can he tell us whether that shortage is going to continue or whether his Department

already see ways and means whereby the overtime will be eliminated?

Sir P. Sassoon: It is not simple to answer that question. We have to take the whole situation into account. The hon. Member knows the tremendous pressure there is on this class of man, especially owing to the increased calls of the Defence services; but I will do everything I possibly can, and so will my Department, to get over the question of overtime and to engage as many people as we can who are capable and suitable for our work. I hope the matter will be very largely remedied soon. I cannot promise to abolish overtime, because it cannot be done at present, but I hope the situation will be largely remedied in the not far distant future.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Benn: There is a very large item of £63,000 required for estimated deficiency in receipts in respect of salaries and expenses of staff engaged on recoverable services due to underspending during the year. Can the right hon. Gentleman give particulars of that item?

Sir P. Sassoon: It is in respect of work done for other Departments, for which we are the agents. We do not get the money back until the whole of the work has been completed. Before the work has been completed we have to incur considerable expenditure in respect of staff.

Mr. Benn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what items are covered?

Sir P. Sassoon: Munition factories and other works for the Defence services.

Mr. Benn: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us details of the works which it has not been possible to complete and in respect of which payment is not yet due to his Department?

Sir P. Sassoon: Perhaps it is only natural that one should anticipate the happy day when payments for service one renders will be received, but it is obvious that over such a very large sphere of activity as that covered by the Office of Works, there are certain delays, and that a stage is reached when payment for our expenditure is slightly postponed. Anyone who is familiar with these transactions will realise that there is a certain amount of delay in the completion of very big building schemes.

Mr. Benn: From what the right hon. Gentleman has said, this point is of some substance. We are dealing here, I presume, with quite a small staff, a professional staff, and yet the outstanding amount is £63,000, which has not been recovered because the job has not been completed. They have done their part of the work but their wages and salaries are not repaid to the Department until the work as a whole has been completed. What is this work? It is work on munition factories. Therefore, the progress in the building of munition factories, which was contemplated by the Government at the beginning of the year for which they made provision in the Estimates, has not been achieved. I am not sure whether that is the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman or not, but it is a very valuable point to have brought out in this Debate. It is a very serious thing, and I call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the building of these munition factories and the development of the Defence scheme—the policy for which is, of course, controlled by other Departments—is so far behind that the right hon. Gentleman is making an appropriation of £63,000 for professional work this year. That sum arises because the very elaborate and very considerable work of erecting these factories has not been completed by the time at which the Government thought it ought to be completed. Probably the First Commissioner would like to tell us in connection with which factories this delay is taking place. This is the time to ask such a question. We should not be entitled to ask it on any other Vote.

Sir P. Sassoon: I hope the Committee will not assume that there has been any considerable delay in this work. It is only natural, in large schemes of this kind, that there should be a considerable amount of lag in the making up of the accounts. When I am dealing with these large jobs I charge a percentage on actual expenditure, and, of course, the whole of my administrative expenditure is incurred long before the work has been completed, and is indeed incurred even before building operations begin. It must not be taken that there has been any undue delay in the work because I do not get my money until the work has been completed.

Mr. Benn: I do not wish unduly to press the First Commissioner but we have

hit upon a point of real importance. The fact is that certain munition factories are still under construction which he thought would be finished in time to enable him to be recouped by 31st March. They are not finished, and that means that there has been delay.

Sir P. Sassoon: I hope they will be finished by the anticipated time.

Mr. Benn: But the Government programme arranged that they should be finished. The Estimates for the work were not framed on the First Commissioner's requirements but on some plan or programme. That programme allowed for the completion of the factories so that the First Commissioner could be recouped for this expenditure before the end of the financial year. They are not finished in time, and, therefore, there is a delay in the completion of this part of our national Defence programme. We are not dealing here with the cost of materials. That is a different thing altogether. We are dealing here with a sum of £63,000, which is simply for wages and is, I imagine, concerned with technical staff. A sum of £63,000 in wages of technical staff may represent hundreds of thousands of pounds in materials and other costs. Therefore, although I do not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman, I think the Committee ought to know in connection with which of the munition factories this unexpected delay has taken place.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: Are we to understand that in the case of the great factory at Chorley, for instance, one of the largest in the country, the right hon. Gentleman has to wait until the work is completed for the payment of his technical staff? If so it would appear that he will not receive his money next year let alone this year. Are we to understand that in the case of all these large munition factories the money for the technical staff will not be paid until the buildings are finished?

8.6 p.m.

Sir P. Sassoon: The right hon. Gentleman asked me for the names of some of these factories. This is not only a case of munition factories, but of other works as well, including a new criminal lunatic asylum, the Admiralty training establishment at Rosyth and certain extensions of Scotland Yard. There are new factories


at Bridgend and elsewhere which are not yet completed. In some of these cases there has been a certain amount of delay because of protracted negotiations in dealing with landowners and other matters of that kind. But I hope the Committee will not assume that there has been undue delay in the completion of the actual work.

Mr. Benson: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some indication of the total amount represented by the work which is unfinished? This item refers only to technical staff. What is the gross total represented by the work in arrears?

Mr. Viant: Are we to understand that this item covers only architects, clerks of works, and other professional men, and that the charge ultimately will be upon the Departments for which the work is being done? Will the amount ultimately be collected from the responsible Department?

8.8 p.m.

Sir Isidore Salmon: It strikes me that hon. and right hon. Members opposite, instead of dealing with this matter from a business aspect, are trying to make party capital out of something which does not exist. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) stressed the point about munition factories not being finished. My right hon. Friend has just explained that there is bound to be a lag between the time at which the job is finished and the time at which the accounts are made out. The amount of £63,000 is infinitesimal compared with the amount of work which is probably already finished, but the accounts for which have not yet been dealt with departmentally, and I do not think it fair to assume that any undue delay is taking place in the actual work.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. Benn: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, who so seldom contributes his illuminating remarks to our Debates, for his way of treating criticisms from this side of the Committee, which are only ordinary and proper criticisms on Votes in Supply. I have observed that on some other occasions the hon. Gentleman—who was undoubtedly out of order in imputing motives to us—when matters arose which touched himself—

The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman must not pass remarks of that

kind. If those remarks were out of order on the part of the hon. Member for Harrow (Sir I. Salmon) they would also be out of order on the part of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Benn: If the remarks are out of order I will not pursue them, but I will draw your attention to the fact that instead of addressing himself to the point at issue, the hon. Member said that we were animated by party motives in putting these questions. Then, rather ill-advisedly, he took on the defence of the departments though he does not know anything about the details of the matter. He says that everybody ought to know that a small sum like this £63,000 might not be covered until next year. But this sum does not represent the case. This is a key amount. It is the payment made to the technical staff, and it may represent millions of pounds in actual bricks and mortar. Of course, there is an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to put himself right. I think he ought not to have plunged in, especially in the rather clumsy and offensive way in which h
e did so, if he is not prepared to deal with the subject and does not know the details of the matter in hand. But I understand that the First Commissioner is willing to reply to our point. Here is a sum of £63,000 in respect of buildings which the Government programme provided should be finished by 31st March. That programme was not completed on 31st March, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the total sum represented by these works at Bridgend and elsewhere? How many millions of pounds or hundreds of thousands of pounds, are represented by the delayed programme?

Sir P. Sassoon: The programme was a £6,000,000 programme all over, in respect of which we ask for this £63,000 Appropriation-in-Aid.

Mr. Benson: Is £6,000,000 the sum originally proposed to be spent? The right hon. Gentleman has not told us how much has been spent and how much is in arrears.

Sir P. Sassoon: I am afraid I could not answer that question. The £6,000,000 covers the whole programme.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: May we get back to Subhead A? I wish to endorse what has


been said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) on the subject of overtime and of saving on vacant posts. It seems a great calamity that in these times we should be spending £24,000 on overtime while at the same time there are so many men out of work. This sum would provide 100 people with work for a year at salaries of £240 a year each. I also wish to know whether this overtime was paid at the usual rate or at an increased rate? I understand that these are professional men, and I do not think it likely that they work overtime for the ordinary rates. If so, is it businesslike to be paying a higher rate for overtime while leaving posts vacant?

Sir P. Sassoon: I do not think I can add to what I have already said on that point. We have had to employ these men on overtime because we were not able to recruit the number of professional men whom we wished to use. As I have already said, I hope that the position will be remedied in a short time and that we shall be able to get more of these architects and draftsmen.

Mr. Sexton: Were they paid the usual rate or the overtime rate?

Sir P. Sassoon: They were paid on the overtime rate.

Mr. Leslie: Had this item anything to do with the renovation of the dining-room in the House of Commons?

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £81,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His. Majesty's Works and Public Buildings.

PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £164,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes, including Historic Buildings, Ancient Monuments, Brompton Cemetery and certain Housing Estates.

8.15 p.m.

Colonel Nathan: There is one small item upon which I should like some information.

It is a small item of "additional receipts," that is, admission fees to the Tower of London, Armouries and Jewel House, £2,000; the sale of guide books and postcards, £500; and miscellaneous, £800. It will be interesting to know how these items arose—whether it was due to the increased interest in the Tower of London and the Jewel House on account of the Coronation.

Sir P. Sassoon: I think that was the case.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I do not know whether the case of an interesting building in connection with the hospital at Greenwich comes under this Vote or not, but if so, I should like to ask a question about it.

Sir P. Sassoon: That comes under the Vote.

Mr. MacLaren: I hope the Minister will explain this Vote.

8.16 p.m.

Sir P. Sassoon: This Vote covers all the services which my Department has to do for other Departments which are not accounted for in other more specialised Votes—such as Labour and Health, Revenue buildings, public buildings overseas and art and science buildings. It also includes the Foreign, Colonial and Dominion offices, the headquarters of the Defence Departments, and such Departments as the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Pensions and the Stationery Office. It covers also certain historic buildings and ancient monuments, the administration of which is in my hands. I am glad to say that on this occasion it is not necessary to go into great detail and explain why this extra sum is needed. Nothing is needed on the main sub-head of the Vote, which covers new works. Sub-head (c) is the maintenance and repair of public offices. Here owing to an underestimate of a number of small jobs of less than £500, which I am called upon to execute, I am short of £22,000. It is because these jobs are of a minor character that it is impossible to estimate accurately the amount of work we shall have to do; there are too many urgent cases cropping up during a year. It has been found that, on the whole, it is better to take a lump sum based on the average of what has been spent in this part of the Vote during the previous three years. This has been


done in this case, but the requirements of a great many Departments, and new Departments particularly, in connection with the defence services, have falsified the experience of past years, and therefore I have to ask for this additional sum. About £8,000 of this extra sum is required for maintenance work on the increased number of existing buildings which have been brought under my charge chiefly in connection with the defence services.
Turning to rents, this is not altogether an extra sum as I shall get some of it back as Appropriations-in-Aid, because it has been spent on two items whose cost I shall recover. One is the line of space at the Earl's Court Exhibition for the British Industries Fair which opened on the 21st February, and the other is the amount required for the Tithe Redemption Commission, which is self-supporting. Then an increasing number of premises means an increase in the expenditure on fuel, water, lighting, cleaning utensils, laundry and other household articles. For these I have to ask for an increased provision. Similarly with furniture. The increased staffs in Government Departments, especially those in connection with Defence services, make an additional provision necessary. The Committee will see from the Paper that so far as these increases are concerned they add up to a considerable amount but have been largely set off by savings. These savings are the result of the delay in a number of schemes, the new Government offices at Edinburgh, which are not making as rapid progress as had been hoped. There is also the extension to the Stationery Office Printing Works at Harrow, the new Whitehall buildings, and the purchase of a new site for the Ordnance Survey Office. I am glad to be able to inform the Committee that the difficulties of commencing the new Whitehall buildings have been surmounted and it is anticipated that the demolition of the houses at present on the site will be begun this summer. Once more the underspending of the voted provision has involved a parallel deficiency in the Appropriations-in-Aid. We shall not receive a sum of £50,800, which we expected to spend in 1937, and which we were due to be paid out of a balance of £600,000 provided by the Finance Act, 1908. This balance will, of course, be drawn upon next year.

Mr. Kelly: I did not hear from the Minister the rental which we are paying

in connection with the Earl's Court Exhibition, and whether it is a greater amount than we paid in previous years when the exhibition was held elsewhere.

Sir P. Sassoon: This is the first year that the Office of Works have been concerned in this matter and I do not know whether I can give any comparison.

Mr. Kelly: What are you paying this year?

Mr. Benn: Will the Minister also inquire whether there is anything in this Vote for the building of the British Pavilion at the Paris Exhibition?

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: In regard to the item "furniture," is this £40,000 required because of the extension of the Defence services? Can the Minister give us further information as to the furniture required for the Defence services? Is it office furniture? Is bedding involved?

Sir P. Sassoon: The increase is in the various Departments. These are new buildings or extensions, and as the hon. Member knows the Service Departments have been increased and expanded and others have been taken over for new accommodation. There is nothing in the Estimate about rental, and I do not think we usually give figures as to rental.

Mr. Davidson: Does this item include the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, because it is generally understood that the purpose of creating this Department was to bring about economy?

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot go into that question on this Vote.

Sir P. Sassoon: It does not only apply to Defence Departments but to extensions in other Departments, the Ministry of Transport, the Board of Education, and the accommodation which is necessary in connection with the Physical Fitness Campaign, and to many other cases.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Benson: I observe that the anticipated savings on Public Offices, etc., amount to £95,000, which covers a large number of items. The anticipated shortage on the Appropriations-in-Aid, which apparently is limited to Government offices in Whitehall, is £50,000, which is more than half the total anticipated savings.


That would suggest that in the first year the percentage of overhead charges was enormous. Can the right hon. Baronet elucidate this matter?

8.26 p.m.

Sir P. Sassoon: If the hon. Member is referring to the new Whitehall building, the original estimate for Appropriations-in-Aid, was £282,000, and the deficiency now—

Mr. Benson: I think the new Whitehall building has not yet been started. I take it that the anticipated savings include the whole of the amount which it was intended should be spent on the new Whitehall building.

Sir P. Sassoon: The Finance Act, 1908, provided that £600,000 of the surplus for the financial year 1907 should be applied in defraying expenditure incurred by the Commissioner of Works in erecting buildings in connection with public offices in Whitehall or buildings to be acquired for the purpose. A balance of about £193,000 remains unexpended and is being utilised as an Appropriation-in-Aid of the expenditure on the new Whitehall building. As the expenditure on the building for this financial year will be £50,800 less than was estimated, there will be a corresponding shortage in the Appropriations-in-Aid.

Mr. Benson: If I understand the right hon. Baronet correctly, the whole of the money which it was proposed to spend on the Whitehall building was £50,800, which was to be paid out of the 1908 Fund. Therefore, as that money has been spent, the whole Appropriation-in-Aid falls.

Sir P. Sassoon: I do not know whether the money was spent on building, but it was spent otherwise.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Batey: On page 32 of the Supplementary Estimates, under Sub-head I, I see that there is a Vote of £14,500 for fuel. Does that mean that increased prices had to be paid for coal? If so, what was the increase in price, and was the coal obtained from London merchants or direct from the colliery? I should like also to know the reason for the large increase of £8,100 for gas and £7,400 for electric current.

8.29 p.m.

Sir P. Sassoon: The increase in the amount is due to the fact that we have enlarged the number of buildings for which we have to supply electric current and gas. I do not think the hon. Member can have been present earlier in the evening when I dealt with the price of coal. We buy coal by competitive methods and put the orders out for competition. We buy in the cheapest possible market, and we pay the price for coal delivered, and not the pit price. During last year, the price of the coal which we bought increased on the average by about 4s. a ton.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Can the right hon. Baronet tell we what has been the increase in the price of coal since the miners received their increase in wages in January, 1936? As far as I remember, there was an increase of 4s. last year, and an increase of 4s. this year, would mean a total increase of 8s. since 1936. The miners have received an increase of only 1s. a day, and in some cases 9d. a day. When there was an outcry all over the country about the wages of the miners, we were given to understand that the coalowners—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Member may not raise that point on this Vote.

Mr. G. Griffiths: As this is a Vote for a higher price for coal, surely we are in order, Captain Bourne, in discussing this matter.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is entitled to ask the Minister why more money is needed, but he cannot expect the Minister to say why there is an increase in the price of coal.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Lee: Are we to understand that this was an increase in price only, or was there an increase in the amount of coal needed?

Sir P. Sassoon: It was purely an increase in the price charged to us, including an increase in the freightage.

Mr. G. Griffiths: While I bow to your Ruling, Captain Bourne, I would like the Minister to answer my question about the increase in price during the last two years. I should like also to know whether the


coal is bought direct from the pithead. The price of coal in Yorkshire, on last month's ascertainment, was 14s. 9d. a ton at the pithead, and before the increase in wages it was 12s. 1½d. a ton. I would like to know whether the coal is bought direct from the pit or from the merchants, after they have sold it to themselves two or three times before the right hon. Baronet's Department gets it.

Sir P. Sassoon: Our requirements are put out to competition, and we accept the lowest tenders for the coal we need.

Mr. Griffiths: From whom is the coal bought, the pit or the coal factor?

Sir P. Sassoon: From the contractor.

Mr. Griffiths: That means about the sixth contractor before the Department gets it.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: When the right hon. Baronet finds that prices have risen, does he, before placing the order with the contractor, make an investigation into the reasons for the increase?

Sir P. Sassoon: If our requirements are put out to competition, we can compare the various tenders. It was not only an increase in the price of one sort of coal, but of several different varieties. It is difficult to say what is the increase in the case of one particular sort. Over the whole of the varieties of coal which we need, during the last year there was an increase, on the average, of about 4s. a ton, including the rise in cost of freightage.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: May I ask on what basis the tenders are accepted?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member may not raise that matter on this Vote.

Mr. Viant: Will the right hon. Baronet inform the Committee what is the average price per ton which his Department has to pay at the present time?

Sir P. Sassoon: I cannot do so, because of the different varieties of coal which we buy.

Mr. Viant: I said the average price.

The Deputy-Chairman: That matter does not arise on this Vote. The hon.

Member may ask why there is an increase in the Vote, but the other question must be raised on the Estimates.

8.34 p.m.

Sir Stafford Cripps: May we ask the Minister by how much each variety of coal has increased in price since last year? If he would tell us that, we should be able to get some indication of what we want.

The Deputy-Chairman: Hon. Members seem to me to be raising a question of policy which ought to be raised on the Vote for the salary of the Minister, and not on this Vote.

Sir S. Cripps: Further to that point, when there is a Supplementary Estimate of £14,500 for fuel, which is alleged to be due entirely to the increased price of that fuel, surely we are entitled to know by how much each variety of that fuel has increased in price. The figure of £14,500 is derived from that.

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, but that is a different question.

Sir P. Sassoon: I do not think the price for each quality of coal can be given.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Was the contract price this year given to the same firm as had it last year?

Sir P. Sassoon: It goes out to competition.

Mr. Griffiths: But did the same contractor supply you this time as last time?

Sir P. Sassoon: I think there must be a great variety of contractors, but I could not give offhand the name of one particular contractor.

Mr. Benson: Will the right hon. Gentleman explore the question of purchasing, not in London, but at the pithead?

The Deputy-Chairman: No, that cannot possibly arise.

Mr. Batey: I take it that the Minister, before he brought in the original Estimate last year, would have contracted for a certain amount of coal. Now, having a Supplementary Estimate before us, I take it that they must have made a mistake in their original contract, or else they have been compelled to pay an increased price. I think we are entitled to know what has happened, because this £14,500 is a very large amount.

Mr. Wakefield: Is it not a fact that in this Estimate appears not only the increase in price, but also a considerable increase in use, due to the expansion of buildings and so forth?

Sir P. Sassoon: I have said that that is so, and that over and above that there has been an increase in the price of coal. Our contract prices are not for all kinds of coal, but for those particular qualities which we need, and they are obtained after competition.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £64,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes, including Historic Buildings. Ancient Monuments, Brompton Cemetery, and certain Housing Estates.

ROYAL PALACES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces, including a Grant-in-Aid.

8.39 p.m.

Sir p. Sassoon: This is a token Vote of £10, and I should like to explain to the Committee that it is in connection with a new heating system which is being put in at Hampton Court. As my right hon. Friend opposite knows, for over half a century the State apartments at Hampton Court have been disfigured by the very ugly iron pipes that have run round all the State rooms. They have made it very difficult to furnish them, and they have made the general aspect of those rooms particularly unsightly. Unfortunately, they did their work well, and while they continued to do their work well, it was difficult to get money from public funds for them to be replaced. I am glad to tell the Committee that a donor has come forward—he wishes to remain anonymous—who has very generously consented to defray the cost of this new heating. The work is being done in two sections, and this year it is hoped that we shall be able to instal the new heating system in all the State rooms on the south and east sides, while next year we shall do this on the back portion.

Not only will this new system be put in, but we shall be able to re-hang the tapestries, and the Keeper of the King's Pictures will be able to effect a re-hanging of the pictures.

The Deputy-Chairman: That does not arise on this Estimate.

Mr. Viant: I think the Committee would be interested to have the information as to what type of heating apparatus is being installed. I anticipate, having visited Hampton Court on one or two occasions, that it will be a hot water system, but I want to know whether it is an electric system that is being installed or whether it is still a hot water system.

Sir P. Sassoon: It is a hot water system. It will consist of panels in the floors about five feet wide and from five to 14 feet long, I believe, and these will be fed by tubes. The heating will be by hot water. Over that there will be matting flush with the floor, which will not in any way take away from the power of the heating system, but at the same time will conceal it in a decorative manner.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the secret donor who is giving £6,990 will not be entitled to interfere in any way?

Sir P. Sassoon: It is the kind of interference that one might welcome on this occasion.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces, including a Grant in Aid.

REVENUE BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £59,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, certain Post Offices abroad, and for certain expenses in connection with Boats and Launches belonging to the Customs and Excise Department.

8.44 p.m.

Sir P. Sassoon: This Vote, as its name implies, deals chiefly with buildings occupied by Departments responsible for the


collection of revenue. The Committee will, I am sure, agree that, since such establishments are unavoidable, it is desirable that they should be well kept. This Vote, therefore, covers buildings occupied by the Custom and Excise Departments and those of the Inland Revenue, including the premises of their inspectors and collectors of taxes and the staff of the Inland Revenue valuer. It also includes work done by my Department for my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, so far as it is not in the nature of capital expenditure. Of the three Departments with which I have to deal under this Vote, I think that the most difficulty is experienced with the offices of the Inland Revenue. Owing to the staff expansions and office reorganisation which have taken place in recent years, and for which I disclaim all responsibility, they have in many cases become inadequate or unsuitable. I have had the added difficulty of having to provide good offices in a large number of places when office accommodation, for one reason or another, simply does not exist.
My need for more money this year on the Inland Revenue side arises chiefly from better progress being made in a number of schemes than was expected. The lump sum deduction made from the gross total in respect of new works has again proved to be too large. Also some urgent expenditure has had to be incurred on the adaptation of buildings hired for Inland Revenue purposes. These were Turnstile House, Holborn, and Clifton House, Euston, required to house the Special Commissioners of Income Tax; and Waterloo Bridge House, needed to house staffs of the Departmental Claims Branch and the Chief Inspector displaced from Cornwall House close by. As under the other Votes, the acquisition of new premises has sent up the sums for cleaning, custody and the provision of household articles, under Sub-head M, the cost of which has been increased by the rise in prices.
On the Post Office side the most interesting item is, perhaps, the adaptation of the old Palace of Engineering at Wembley for a television laboratory and for experimental work on broadcasting. With so new a service the original requirements could not be wholly foreseen and the accommodation proved to be too small so that the Postmaster-General asked me to find more space. This involved

further expenditure on adaptations. Considerably more is required for maintenance, comprising a large number of items, all costing less than £1,000. They include such work as minor alterations, work for Christmas pressure, the supply of fittings for sorting and other offices. With perpetual expansion of Post Office work, it is inevitable that the cost of such items should increase; but it; is not easy to forecast with complete accuracy any of their increase in any one year.

Mr. Leslie: I notice that there is an increase of £20,000 on fuel. When the Office of Works has competitive tenders, is there much difference in the prices?

Sir P. Sassoon: I cannot add anything more to what I have said on the other Votes, as far as coal is concerned.

Mr. Leslie: What I want to know is whether, when the Office of Works receive tenders they observe much difference in the prices quoted.

Sir P. Sassoon: The point of having tenders is that there is a difference.

Mr. Leslie: I want to know whether there is much difference shown when you get the tenders. I want to know whether there is a ring.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Muff: When the Minister departs from his brief he has not very much to tell us in the way of detail. We have listened to a few minutes tribulation, from which we gather that the increase in the cost of living is causing some unrest in the mind of the First Commissioner. That is interesting from the standpoint of the ordinary householder, because the First Commissioner is sharing with the housewife the increases in the price of coal, soap and other utensils. The Committee is entitled to a more specific answer as to the reason why the Commissioner is having to pay £20,000 more for coal. Is he using more coal? If so, how many hundredweights more? Has the price of coal gone up by one halfpenny or one penny per hundredweight? The First Commissioner should tell us. In the Estimates there is an increase of £2,500 for domestic utensils. The First Commissioner should be more precise and tell us about that in more detail. Has soft soap gone up? We have had soft soap


from him in his explanatory brief, but we want a little more than the brief.
We want the First Commissioner to garnish the story a little in detail. The right hon. Gentleman will find a responsive flutter in our bosoms because, if he is going through travail of mind owing to this increased expenditure he is only in the same category as at least a million housewives who are having to pay more for their soap, coal, brushes and pails. The Committee has a right to hear a little more about the more intimate workings of the right hon. Gentleman's Department instead of having so much left to their imagination. My imagination has been running riot and I have been wondering why the right hon. Gentleman wants so much more money for these very ordinary articles. Therefore, might I ask the First Commissioner please to shed a little light on the details of his interesting Department.

Sir P. Sassoon: It is difficult to refuse a request made in such a very alluring tone. I only wish I had more to say. This question has cropped up under all the other Votes, and I have unfortunately been obliged in every case to sing the same tune. Not only are we using a great many more household utensils, but they have gone up in price, as everybody knows, some of them to a great extent. There has been a great extension of Post Office and Revenue buildings. They have to be kept clean and unfortunately the method by which they are kept clean has gone up considerably in price. I regret it very much.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Batey: I do not think the Minister can expect the Opposition to be satisfied with that statement. It is not sufficient for us for him to say that he is sorry and cannot tell us more. When Supplementary Estimates come before the House we expect the Minister to be in a position to explain them fully. I am in a little more difficulty on this Estimate than I was on the last, because there are three items dealing with fuel, gas, electricity and water, all of which show increases. I was under the impression that when we passed the original Estimate last year we provided for an increase in the cost of fuel, and that whatever price was agreed to then would stand for all the coal supplied for the following 12 months,

until 31st March. But here we are facing a Supplementary Estimate to carry us on until 31st March and under this item we are asked to pay an increased amount of no less than £28,000. The Minister's statement that they have had to pay an increase of 4s. a ton for coal would mean they were paying that increase on 140,000 tons of coal. It is difficult to accept that statement. I want the Minister to tell us whether they are really using so much more coal, and to give us a rough estimate of how much more, and also to state the number of tons on which they are paying the increase of 4s. a ton. The Minister has said more than once that they get their coal by competitive tenders. What some of us are anxious to know is whether increased prices have been forced upon the Minister by a "ring." We are afraid of some "ring" in the coal industry, and wish he would go direct to the collieries rather than submit to a ring.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Kirkwood: There are two items in the Estimate dealing with Post Office buildings in Glasgow. One items says:
Glasgow, West Nile Street Post Office: Adaptations £1,120.
I should like to know on what the money is spent and what is meant by "adaptations." Another item is:
Glasgow, Langside Telephone Exchange: Adaptations £500.
A further item is:
Works costing between £1,000 and £2,000, £3,780.
I should like an explanation of those three items. The last one is very vague. In all my years in this House I have never seen such a vague item in the Estimates. Talk about putting down "Miscellaneous." Nothing is designated. It is not even said that the money is spent on "adaptations," whatever that may mean.

The Deputy-Chairman: This is only an extension of the original Estimate, in which that phrase occurs.

Mr. Kirkwood: I do not follow you, Captain Bourne.

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member will be good enough to look at the original Estimate, of which this is a Supplementary Estimate, he will see that it includes an item for "Works costing between £1,000 and £2,000." If he wishes to raise the propriety of the entry he must raise it on the main Estimate.

Mr. Kirkwood: Thank you, Captain Bourne; but I should like an explanation of the other two items.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: I should like to press for some more information on those items concerning Glasgow. We like the present Commissioner of Works, he is the most inoffensive of Ministers, and he is most accommodating in trying to give us information, but I am sure he recognises that Members on this side must occasionally face their constituents, which is different, I understand, from the practice of hon. Members opposite, and we must get the necessary information to explain these items. It is all very well for Members here to talk of a mere £59,000 or £80,000 additional, but when we are speaking to our constituents they ask us to explain how the Minister's Estimate could have been "out" to that extent, and unless we have detailed information it is difficult to explain why there has been under-estimating to the extent of £20,000 or 130,000, which is often more than the average working man wins in the Irish Sweepstake—when he does win. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) I am interested in Glasgow. I am glad to see this interest in Glasgow.

Mr. Kirkwood: I was interested in Glasgow before you were born.

Mr. Davidson: I know, but I am not responsible for that. We should like to know the explanation of this item of £1,120. As I have said, the Commissioner of Works is an inoffensive member of the Treasury bench, and I am afraid that some of his friends may have been "putting it across him." The Postmaster-General may have been taking advantage of his good feeling and courtesy. I know West Nile Street, Glasgow, very well indeed, it is a dismal street at the best of times, and I should like to know exactly what is being done at West Nile Street Post Office, as well as what is being done at Langside. An hon. Member who represents Langside is occasionally in the House. In Langside there are people who are very anxious indeed for improvements.
With regard to the rise in the cost of household articles, our party have inaugurated meetings all over the country to protest against the rise in the cost of

living. We are explaining to housewives why they are paying more for their goods. I ask the Commissioner of Works, who could be truly described as the housewife of the Government, to give us more details. He has to look after matters which we and the average housewife in the country can well appreciate, questions relating to gas, electricity, furniture and household articles. In view of the importance of these things to the people of the country, I ask him for more detailed information under these headings.

9.6 p.m.

Sir P. Sassoon: I do not know what further details I can give the hon. Member about them. I think I have said all I can say on the subject. Many of the household requirements are such things as washing materials and towels, and he knows those things much better than I do. I think he will agree with me about the Post Office which is to be put up in West Nile Street. The hon. Gentleman says that it is rather a dreary street, but I am informed that it is a very busy centre indeed and that the counter at the Post Office has had to be increased on two occasions, even as far back as 1930 Since then the business has increased by a considerable figure. The adjoining premises have been taken at a rent of £200 a year and the cost of adapting them is estimated at £2,660. The reason why the money falls into this Vote is that it was originally hoped that the work would be completed by September, 1936. Owing to the high tenders that were received, the matter had to be looked into for a good deal longer than was expected.

Mr. Davidson: Is local labour employed in these adaptations?

Sir P. Sassoon: It is a question of tender. It was not possible to start the work until much later and that is why the cost comes into this Vote, not because we had wrongly estimated it. The work could not be done in time. The hon. Gentleman knows that the work was completed in May of last year. I could give to the hon. Gentleman who asked me for details about the works costing £2,000, a long list of the works. I will let him have any details that he requires, but the list is so long that I do not think that I can conveniently give it to the Committee.

Mr. Kirkwood: The right hon. Gentleman has not explained anything regarding the Langside telephone exchange, on which £500 has been spent.

Sir P. Sassoon: This exchange is on Crown property and includes three residential flats. It is due for conversion from manual to automatic working in 1942. Rehousing will be required prior to that date and an extension is urgently needed. The extension can be effected either by adapting or by taking in the residential flats. The cost of the adaptation was to be met in the Postal Vote, but it was subsequently decided that as the premises are due to be sold in or about 1942 the work could be regarded as temporary and charged to the Building Vote. The £500 is required to enable the work to be started in the present financial year.

Mr. Kirkwood: Are there not tenants in those rooms at the moment and are they not to be displaced? Has the Post Office, or has the right hon. Gentleman, made any provision for rehousing those individuals in the flats, as the right hon. Gentleman calls them, that are to be taken over for this exchange?

Sir P. Sassoon: I could not say offhand, but I will let the hon. Gentleman know.

Mr. Davidson: The right hon. Gentleman states that the premises of the West Nile office had to be extended and when I asked what was the cost of the labour and where the labour came from, he answered that there were tenders, and that the Department had accepted tenders. May I ask where the tenders came from?

The Deputy-Chairman: I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that that is one of the matters which have been already approved, and that the question before us is merely an increase in the amount of the expenditure.

Mr. Muff: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us something about the money which was expended upon that most interesting television experiment at Wembley? That is something in which we are interested. If the Assistant Postmaster-General could tell us something, I should be most grateful.

The Deputy-Chairman: That subject comes under the Post Office Vote.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I understood the Commissioner to say that the cost of fuel had gone up by 4s. per ton. We feel sure that he knows nothing about the coal industry. Black diamonds have not been much under his consideration. Would it not have been possible, when such a large amount of money is involved, to make the purchases directly from the pits?

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman wants to raise that matter, he must do so upon the question of the Minister's salary.

Sir P. Sassoon: I would like to answer the question which was put to me about the contract. It was given to a local firm and it employed local labour.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I wanted to make the suggestion, if it is in order, that an increase of 4s. per ton seems a ridiculously high figure in view of the fact that pithead prices increased by only 1s. 8d. per ton. While not making any allegation that money has been misspent in any way, I would join with my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) in pointing out what seems to us a better way of spending it, in view of the rising cost of living of which the First Commissioner of Works has been speaking. We are all familiar with the high cost of living; we hear all about it when we go and meet out constituents in the country. The Minister says that he asked for tenders, and I understood him to say that there was a variation in the prices tendered. This is not the first time I have heard of a slight difference in prices tendered, but that is not the way to get down to this problem. If this amount of money had represented an increase of pithead prices, it would have helped the miners' ascertainment, but has the First Commissioner the foggiest notion at all of how many hands the coal passes through before it percolates down to where it is used? The difference between an increase of 1s. 8d.—

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member wishes to raise that question, he must raise it on the Minister's salary.

Mr. Taylor: Could we have the price that is being paid? I think we are entitled to that. No clerk to a parish council could have got away with the sort of statement that was made by the


First Commissioner. It was very nice and plausible and kind, and would have been excellent for a pleasant Sunday afternoon, but we are dealing here with public money that is being spent, and, unless the First Commissioner can tell us what he is paying for fuel, I do not think he is up to his job. I do not mean that offensively, but all of us here are councillors on our respective local authorities, and, if the borough treasurer came before us with an estimate of this description for the expenditure of money, we should want to know what he was paying for the various items. Therefore, with regard to such a large sum of money as is represented by an increase of 4s. a ton, at least we ought to know how much per ton is being paid.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: My hon. Friends have raised an issue which is causing concern throughout the country. We move among people in all grades of life, whether representing big industry or ordinary consumers of coal like ourselves, and everyone we meet is expressing concern about the present position. We find that, as a result of this abnormal increase in the cost of coal, an additional £5,500 is required under one heading and an additional £20,000 under another heading. Taking the Estimates for fuel, gas, electricity and water, of which a certain proportion is represented by the cost of coal, they amount to an approximate total of at least £200,000, and the approximate increase due to the increased cost of coal would be about £25,000. Therefore, there is good ground for the anxiety which has been expressed by my hon. Friends, and we are entitled to ask what is being paid per ton for coal by the First Commissioner at the present time. He has told us that there has been an increase of 4s. 3d. per ton, but we want to know what is the price that is being paid per ton now. Moreover, we represent the people of this country, and I think we are entitled to ask whether the First Commissioner has consulted the Prime Minister in regard to this matter. The Prime Minister, as the result of pressure from all parts of the House—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must raise that question on the Minister's salary.

Mr. Smith: I understand that we are strictly limited to dealing with the Supplementary Estimates, and I shall certainly accept your Ruling, but what I was going to point out was that in these Supplementary Estimates an additional sum of approximately £25,000 is required as a result of the increased cost of coal. If we are doing our duty as Members of the House we are bound to be concerned about that, and we are entitled to ask the First Commissioner whether he also is taking steps to protest against this abnormal increase, to ascertain who is getting the benefit of it, and to save the consumers as a whole from being exploited to the extent that they are. He, as representing the spending Departments who are the consumers, ought to join with other Departments in protesting against this increase.

Mr. Batey: Are we to have no reply from the Minister?

9.22 p.m.

Sir P. Sassoon: I appreciate the anxiety of hon. Gentlemen opposite on this matter, but I do not think I can give any further information beyond that which I have already given. In this case there are three different items of fuel, and, of course, the increase is to a very large extent due to the increase in the building programme. As far as the increase in the cost of coal is concerned, I cannot give any definite figure, because it applies over a very large number of varieties of coal. The contracts are put out to tender, and hon. Members may be perfectly sure that we see that we get the cheapest possible tenders. The figure I gave represents an increase of roughly about 4s. per ton in the price of coal, but, as I said before, that includes the rise in freightage which has occurred since last October. The actual price of coal under the contracts is, as I have already explained, settled in July every year, and there is difficulty is estimating in March, since one does not know, but can only guess, what the price in the following July will be. That is why we have to come for a Supplementary Estimate. The price of the coal itself is fixed in the tenders in July for a year, but the fact of the freightage going up or down affects it one way or the other.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Batey: One understands that the price of coal is fixed from July in one


year till July in the next year, but this is not the original Estimate, but a Supplementary Estimate in which the Minister is asking for an additional £25,000. It is no use his saying that several varieties of coal are bought. He was questioned on that point by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) not very long ago, and I understood him to say then that he did not buy a large number of varieties of coal. The varieties of coal are very few. There will be only two or three. We are entitled to know what was the price fixed in the original Estimate, and what is the price fixed in this Estimate. The Minister ought to tell us before we pass the Vote.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Kirkwood: We consider this a very serious matter. Here you have £20,000 more than the Minister had estimated the coal would cost. I drew the attention of the Secretary for Mines to-day to the fact that in Lanarkshire the pithead price of coal is 13s. 1¼d. a ton—that is the price on which the miners' wages are fixed—and that 20 miles from that colliery I am paying £2 6s. 8d. a ton. We are trying to find out who it is that is fleecing the public.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is a question of general policy. It can be raised only on the Minister's salary and not on a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Kirkwood: We are trying to get an explanation. We are not the purchasers of these great quantities of coal. We represent the ordinary people who buy by the cwt., and they are being exploited.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot raise that question on this Supplementary Estimate. He is entitled to ask the Minister only why the amount is larger than in the original Estimate.

Mr. Kirkwood: The fact remains that here is £20,000 extra. There is not an extra quantity of coal nor a new quality. It is the same quantity and the same quality, and yet it costs £20,000 more. We want to know who is robbing the country of this £20,000.

9.29 p.m.

Sir P. Sassoon: Obviously I have no responsibility for the prices of coal. I can only take them as I find them. It is not quite accurate to say that there has

been no increase in the quantity. There has been an increase in the number of offices that consume coal.

Mr. Kirkwood: Did you not estimate for that? Do you tell me now that you under-estimated the amount of coal that you would require in the winter?

Sir P. Sassoon: The Supplementary Vote asks for money for new buildings, and those new buildings have to be heated. The price of coal is decided in July for the year. The last March Estimates had to be framed on the basis of 1936 and we did not know when we framed them in March what the price would be in July, when we had to make our new contracts. I have been asked what kind of coal we were using and whether it had really gone up in price. There are a great many different kinds of coal. We use a great quantity of large Welsh steam. The 1936 price at the pit was 19s. 6d. and in 1937 it was 23s. 6d. In the case of Midland large steam the 1936–37 figures on which we based our last Estimate were 15s. 6d. and in 1937 17s. 9d. Steam slack went up from 12s. 10d. to 15s. 9d. I am only a buyer of coal for my Department. It is not for me to express an opinion one way or another as to prices. I hope hon. Members will now allow me to have the Vote.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. E. Smith: I should like to express my appreciation of the fact that the figures have been given us, but on behalf of consumers and taxpayers I protest against this exploitation that is taking place.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot raise that now.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £59,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, certain Post Offices abroad, and for certain expenses in connection with Boats and Launches belonging to the Customs and Excise Department.

WORKS AND BUILDINGS IN IRELAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray


the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for Expenditure in respect of Public Works and Buildings in Ireland.

9.34 p.m.

Sir P. Sassoon: There are only two main items concerned with works and buildings in Ireland in which my Department is concerned. With regard to the third item, Sub-head F, Reserve services, Customs House and Inland Revenue Office at Londonderry, the work was begun before 31st March, 1937, and proceeded more slowly than was expected. The next item is much larger, the adaptation of a new building to house the nine tax districts in Belfast. They were very crowded in the Customs House before, and a scheme was being brought forward to move at least five of them out. This new building was discovered, which can house all the nine tax districts, and it was, therefore, considered far more convenient to move them all into this building. The landlord was pressing for a decision, and, as the rent seemed very reasonable, it was decided to close with this offer, which was obviously for the convenience of the taxpayers of Belfast. Therefore, I am asking the Committee for this sum, which will be spent on putting the building in order.

9.36 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: One very interesting item to which the right hon. Gentleman has not referred is Sub-head G, which relates to an anticipated saving of £120 on the maintenance and repairs of the Customs line between the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland. I should like to ask a few questions as to the basis on which that anticipation is made. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that certain conversations have been proceeding between different bodies which might lead to the abolition of Customs barriers between the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland. This sum of £120 does not seem quite a proportionate sum to be saved if it is anticipated that any success is likely to come out of these negotiations. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will pay great attention to this, because it is a matter of great importance. He has, no doubt, consulted the Dominions Secretary, who is responsible for the conversations which have been proceeding; and he has, no doubt, obtained from him, before he framed this Supplementary Estimate, his opinion as to what was likely to

happen on the Customs line between the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland. I am not quite clear as to what the maintenance and repairs of a Customs line are. I always thought a Customs line was like a mathematical line, in that it passed between two points and had neither breadth nor any other physical attribute which would require maintenance or repair. I should have thought that the maintenance of a Customs line between two countries was more a matter for political action than for the physical action of a bricklayer or carpenter.
I should like to know how in the past this repairing of the Customs line has been carried out. One has heard, from time to time, that cattle have been driven over this line from the Irish Free State to Northern Ireland. Is it that the cattle have damaged the line in crossing, and is that the reason for the maintenance and repair that the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for? I hope that, with all the wealth of good advice that he is having, the right hon. Gentleman will not be muddled by his own supporters as to what it is that we are dealing with at present. If he would tell us what in the past has been the maintenance and repair to which reference is made here, and on what basis these anticipated savings are going to materialise to the extent of this large sum of £120 in the coming year, we might more successfully conduct the rest of the Debate, because, quite obviously, this raises the whole question of the Customs line, which is of great importance in view of the negotiations between the two countries. Perhaps, after all the consultations that he is having with his political friends and advisers, the right hon. Gentleman would elaborate on that.

9.41 p.m.

Sir Ronald Ross: I should like to introduce into this Debate the non-controversial atmosphere which is typical of Irish politics. I am eager to assist the hon. and learned Gentleman in any way I can. As regards the Customs line, I think it bears an analogy to the Mason-Dixon line, with which, as it is in America, the hon. and learned Gentleman is probably more familiar. I expect that he knows more about America than he does about Ireland. The chief notable event on the Customs line last year was a gesture of good will by the Irish Republican Army, which, with great impartiality, burnt the


huts of the Irish Free State and of Northern Ireland.

Sir S. Cripps: Does the hon. Member suggest that that is the reason for the anticipated saving?

Sir R. Ross: As the huts on both sides of the line were burnt, it may well be that there is a saving in maintenance. That is no doubt a matter with which my right hon. Friend will deal in more considered terms. At all events, the huts were burnt; that we know to be a fact. The hon. and learned Gentleman alluded to success in the negotiations, which will no doubt include questions connected with the Customs between our Government and the Government of whatever the area is described as which includes 26 counties in Ireland. I do not know what the hon. and learned Gentleman means by success, because I should probably look at success from a different angle; but, as regards freedom of trade between the United Kingdom and that part of Ireland which is not part of the United Kingdom, certainly in our part of the country we would be eager to have trade as free as possible and with no restrictions.

The Chairman: I have been listening very carefully, and the hon. Member has not come to the subject of the Estimate.

Sir R. Ross: I was afraid, Sir Dennis, that I was rather putting my foot across the line. I am sure you will not prevent me talking on matters connected with Customs.

The Chairman: Oh, yes.

Sir R. Ross: If there is no trade there are no Customs, and if we can abolish the Customs it means—

The Chairman: I am quite sure the hon. Member tried very hard to enlighten me as to the meaning of the Customs line, but I am not sure how, on this subject, we can discuss the effect of Customs on trade.

Mr. Kirkwood: If there were no Customs would there not be more trade?

The Chairman: That observation is about as disorderly as the others have been.

Sir R. Ross: If, in my remarks about the Customs line, I was in error, I was

led into error by the hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced this subject. He had alluded to the discussions on Customs, and certainly I do not propose to follow him and get into any further slough of despond on the question of Customs.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: I would almost welcome this Debate if only for the opportunity of hearing the delightful Irish brogue of an Irish Member whom we so seldom hear in this House. The Minister stated that the original Estimate was one of £1,345, and the additional sum required is £5,500, and I understand that this is because of new works in order to bring together nine separate Customs departments. Can he give us some details with regard to the building? Irish people employed in this particular task ought to be made as comfortable as Scottish or English people. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the Committee some additional information with regard to the type of buildings, the heating and the sanitary arrangements, and say whether the provision of this additional sum will give to these Irish people the general requirements that we should expect in England, Scotland and Wales?

9.46 p.m.

Sir P. Sassoon: The hon. Gentleman opposite has asked questions about the housing of the officers of these nine districts in one building. They were originally housed in the Customs House, but they have increased in personnel and will go on increasing. Therefore, it would have been essential anyhow to move some of them into what would have been purely temporary accommodation.

Mr. Davidson: The point I am making is that the Department must have had in mind the establishment of new works.

Sir P. Sassoon: It would not have been a satisfactory arrangement to move some of them out of the building. We found Moore's Building, and we are hoping that we shall be able to house the officers of all these districts under one roof. We secured it at a very reasonable rent, but the landlord was not prepared to carry out the necessary works to adapt the building for its new purpose, and, therefore, we are going to do so. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all the points which he has raised about the interior


arrangements and accommodation are being properly looked into; heating and electric light, fire appliances, and all the necessary arrangements and equipments for the work. There is nothing more that I can explain under that particular heading, and I hope that the hon. Member will be satisfied.
With regard to the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite raised, I am afraid that I did not get the help and assistance of which he was thinking from my many advisers, because I am not able to enlighten him very much upon this matter beyond what he knows himself. There have apparently always been these kinds of huts in connection with Customs in Ireland. In our original Estimate we provided a sum of about £1,600 for the upkeep of these houses or huts, and the saving of £120 that we are now making apparently comes about because the houses are not in need of so much attention and repair as was originally contemplated.

Sir R. Ross: Is not that because they were all burnt down?

Sir P. Sassoon: No, Sir.

9.50 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: That is hardly a satisfactory explanation to give. This is an anticipated saving and not a realised saving. I would ask what the right hon. Gentleman has taken into account in making this Estimate? Upon what is his anticipation based? It must be based upon one of two things; either upon the maintenance of the Customs or the disappearance of the Customs, one or the other. I can see that very definite considerations might help the right hon. Gentleman in arriving at the anticipation as to whether he thought that, on the whole, the possibilities were that the Customs might disappear during the next month or so, or if he thought, on the other hand, after consultation with his right hon. Friend, that there was no opportunity of that happening. What I particularly ask is: What was the outcome of his conversations on this subject with his right hon. Friend before he sat down to make this Estimate? He is not going to tell the Committee that he did not consult anybody and that he went off all alone into a room and sat down and decided that the Customs item was

£120. He must have had some basis for his Estimate.
I am asking him, in regard to these careful inquiries which he made and upon which he arrived at this Estimate, whether he can say what was the result, as far as his right hon. Friend, who is dealing with these negotiations, is concerned? Did he ask him? If he did ask him, what did he tell him? As the result of his conversation is he hopeful that there may be some saving on this Customs line because it may be no longer necessary to maintain it in the high state of repair as at present, as it is not to last very long. It may be a year or two, but if it were to go in six months, it would not be worth while spending much money in order to repair it at the present time. It may be five years before it is allowed to go. I do not know. I am asking that question because, if we ourselves have to arrive at an accurate judgment on these anticipated savings, we must know what the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge is of what is likely to happen in the future. It is on that that his anticipation is based, and we are asking him not to leave us blind as to what is likely to happen. We have not been at these conversations and we cannot form any judgment. We do not know. Cannot he give the Committee the benefit of his knowledge, so that on that basis we too may be able to judge as to whether his anticipations are such that we should pass this Vote to-night or not.

9.54 p.m.

Sir P. Sassoon: I would be only too pleased to share my knowledge with the hon. and learned Gentleman if I were better informed than he is on this subject. Unfortunately, the conversation which I have had with ray right hon. Friend, which the hon. and learned Gentleman has so vividly described to the Committee, has not yet taken place. I really hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not impute any ulterior motives to me in regard to this very small item of £120.

Sir S. Cripps: As the right hon. Gentleman has so frankly confessed that he has not taken any trouble whatever to be able to advise the Committee upon this item, I can only say—of course we cannot pursue it, because it would be a waste of time to do so—that we must warn


him that in future if matters of this sort come up we shall expect him to have made inquiries in the proper quarters beforehand, so that he can inform the Committee as to the position and the Committee can form their own opinion as to the advisability of confirming the Vote, or otherwise.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £16,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3rst day of March, 1938, for Expenditure in respect of Public Works and Buildings in Ireland.

CLASS I.

PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council.

9.57 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): This Supplementary Estimate, and the one that follows, are both occasioned by the same cause. They are due to an increase in salaries under the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937. Whatever hon. Members in any quarter of the Committee may think about that increase in the salaries of Ministers, that is a point that we cannot discuss on this Vote. The fact is, that the increase took place as from 1st July, 1937, which was after the time when the original Estimate was framed. Therefore, the Privy Council Office Vote has to bear an extra charge of £2,250. This extra expenditure is partly offset by certain savings, leaving an excess of expenditure of £964, which is the gross amount asked for. It was estimated that the receipts from judicial fees, etc., would produce 14,400, but it is expected that they will exceed that figure by not less than £954. The sanction of Parliament is required to apply these additional receipts in deduction from the extra expenditure that has been incurred. Those are the reasons for the Token Estimate of £10.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: As I understand it, the additional sum required is due to

the Lord President of the Council. During the last few days the Lord President of the Council has taken another office and but for that fact the whole of this sum would not have been required. Has that fact been taken into account and does the change of office affect this Supplementay Estimate?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Any change that has taken place will be taken into account, but it does not affect this Token Estimate.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I should like to emphasise the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). All the Members of the Cabinet were, according to the decision of Parliament last year, to be paid salaries of £5,000 a year. A particular Nobleman at the present time holds two offices, each of which in normal circumstances would carry a salary of £5,000 a year. For part of the period covered by this Supplementary Estimate, the two offices will be held by him. As I understand it, he is going to draw only one £5,000, as from the date of his appointment to the second office of Foreign Secretary. How does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that that saving in expenditure is going to be shown? It seems to me that if we vote this money to-night it will be possible for the Lord President of the Council to draw, up to 31st March, a salary of £5,000 in respect of that office. There was no need to introduce the Supplementary Estimates in regard to the position of Foreign Secretary, because that was already covered by the salary of £5,000 attaching to that office. I do not see that the example given by the Financial Secretary covers this point. It has been stated in the Press that the Noble Lord is not going to draw two salaries. That being so, why is it necessary to bring forward this Supplementary Estimate to-night, because presumably the saving is far more than £10?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: There is no question of the Noble Lord drawing two salaries, but it is necessary to make provision for the salary attaching to this office. This is only a Token Vote of £10, but unless we brought that token sum forward to-night for confirmation, we could not apply the extra receipts as Appropriations-in-Aid.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: Could the Financial Secretary offer any enlightenment on the item on page 4, on which it appears that the rise in salary in this financial year has meant a Supplementary Vote of £2,250, which is partially offset by savings? I wonder what those savings can be. Whose salaries have been saved? We were without a Foreign Secretary for a little time. Has that resulted in a saving to the Treasury during the period of the vacancy? If so, there is at least some small satisfaction to be derived from the events through which we have passed; or has there been a reduction in some other salaries in order to provide the extra money required to pay the increased salary of the Lord President of the Council? The House would certainly not approve the increase of the salaries of Ministers if it meant reducing the salaries of lower-paid officials. It is difficult to see how savings in salaries could occur in such a way as to be an offset in the Supplementary Estimate.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The hon. Member has not a close knowledge of Civil Service conditions, otherwise he would not suggest that one could so readily reduce the salaries of the staff. There is no question of the salaries of lower-paid officials being reduced in order to find money to offset the increase brought about by an Act of Parliament. Changes have taken place in the staff, and new staff coming in on the minimum of the scale have brought about a considerable saving. If the hon. Member will look through the matter in detail he will find that these civil servants begin at a certain rate of salary and mount by increments to a higher figure. There has been no deliberate attempt to offset the increase by a reduction in other salaries but changes in the staff have caused this saving, owing to the fact that new members of the staff have come in at a lower point on the same salary scale.

Mr. Silverman: This is a Supplementary Estimate and surely the authorities concerned must have known the state of the staff at the beginning of the year and how many officials they would require and what new officials were likely to come in at the lower point on the salary scale. We are told that this saving of apparently £1,300 or £1,400 has been made because

people who were higher than the minimum have ceased to draw salaries and their places have been taken by junior officers, lower down on the salary scale. Could not all these things have been estimated for originally? Those facts should have been well within the ambit of such investigations as are made into these matters. The fact that a Supplementary Estimate has been necessary may mean that one was at fault in suggesting that the salaries of other officials were cut down. But it also seems to indicate the possibility of people who were at the top end of the scale being retired, in order to get in people at the lower end of the scale, to make this saving.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council.

PRIVY SEAL OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,850, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Lord Privy Seal.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: This Supplementary Estimate arises in precisely the same way as the Estimate which the Committee has just passed, and hon. Members will not require me to go over the explanation again.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Kirkwood: When the Labour Government, in 1924, appointed a Lord Privy Seal, we were anxious to know what were to be the duties of the office. I asked the then Lord Privy Seal what his duties were and his reply was, "God only knows." Why is it essential that this Minister should have £5,000 a year. At the moment he is sailing round the world. He is not doing any job that I know of, connected with the Government. I have asked each Lord Privy Seal appointed under the Labour Government what was his job as a Member of the Government and none of them could tell me. Time and time again the Labour Government had to find work for the Lord Privy Seal outside that particular


office. I think I am in order in asking a representative of the Government to tell us what are the duties of the Lord Privy Seal which justify this increase of £1,850 a year.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is too late. That was settled by an Act of Parliament passed some time ago.

Mr. Kirkwood: Surely we have a right to ask what is the justification for this increase. I bow to your Ruling, Sir Dennis, that the House has already decided that this Minister was to get this increase but am I not in order in asking the spokesman of the Government to tell us what are the duties of the office?

The Chairman: I am afraid not.

Mr. Davidson: May I point out that the original estimate was £3,657 and the revised Estimate amounts to £507 over the £5,000. It represents an additional sum of £1,850. The Note states that the additional provision is required to meet the increase from £2,000 to £5,000 per annum. But this estimate would exceed the £5,000, by £507.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The increase is from £2,000 to £5,000 per annum, but only a part of the year is affected by this Estimate. There are certain savings which offset the increase due to the increase of salary under the Act, and if the hon. Member wishes me to enlarge upon these I can do so.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that we do not know what are the duties of the Lord Privy Seal, are we not entitled to refuse this Vote?

The Chairman: I have ruled that the question of the duties of the office of Lord Privy Seal cannot be discussed on the Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Gallacher: I am not proposing to do so, but to suggest that we are entitled not to vote this money. It would be folly on the part of the Committee to vote this money even though an Act of Parliament has been passed to give the Lord Privy Seal an increased salary. Those who were responsible for the passing of that Act ought to dig into their pockets and make good the generous spirit then displayed by them. But it is clearly impossible for this Committee to vote money for an office such as this when nobody

in the House of Commons either knows or is interested in the Lord Privy Seal or what he does.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Kirkwood: I have no desire to divide the Committee on this matter, but I want to get information. You, Sir Dennis, have said that the House has decided that this money shall be paid. If that is the case why is it being brought before us if we have no right to challenge it? We have a right; and that is why it comes before us. All that we are asking is for information, and if we do not get it we are bound to use the only instrument we have, and that is to hold up the business of the Committee and refuse to allow the Vote to go through. We have no desire to do that so long as we get fair treatment. We are told time after time that this is not the proper time to get information. When the Ministers of the Crown Act was before the House it was not permissible for us to make inquiries. Here the office of the Lord Privy Seal comes before the Committee and we are asking the Government to tell us what are the duties of the Lord Privy Seal.

The Chairman: The hon. Member may find an opportunity at another time, but that is out of order on this particular Vote.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I return to the question which I raised on the last Vote. Here again the Committee is being asked to vote an extra sum, part of which has arisen because under the Ministers of the Crown Act the salaries of certain Ministers were increased. In this case there would normally fall to be provided by a Supplementary Estimate a sum of £2,250. But in this case, as in the last, the Committee is not being asked to provide the normal sum, but something less, and the reason given in this case is that there is a coincidence, the coincidence being that as you require in each case a further sum for the salary of the Minister, so it happens, in each case, that there is a saving in the salaries of other officials, this time in the Secretariat department, which was not anticipated and which presumably could not have been anticipated when the main Estimate was voted, although it is now said that the changes are in the normal course. If they are in the normal course they ought to have been budgeted for. A Supplementary


Estimate does not provide for something which occurs in the normal course; if there is a Supplementary Estimate there is something abnormal about it.
What is this abnormality? This brings me to the question of the duties of the Lord Privy Seal. Is the Lord Privy Seal being asked to earn the extra proportion of his salary, the amount by which his salary is greater under the Act than it was before, by doing some of the secretariat work himself for which previously he got a secretary or office boy to do? Has there been some change in the duties of the Lord Privy Seal to correspond with the increased salary which he is getting, or has there been a saving in office expenses which has been set off against the extra money required for his salary? Is the Lord Privy Seal earning his salary by doing more work than he used to do? Has the services of other people been dispensed with? Was it found that the Lord Privy Seal had so little to do under the old arrangement that it was not proper to ask the Committee to vote the whole of the extra money required for his increased salary? Has there been a reorganisation of the Department which has made it necessary that the Committee should vote the whole of that extra money? Has the office been so reorganised that there is really something useful for the Lord Privy Seal to do which was previously done by somebody else?
Such an explanation would be satisfactory, but in the absence of such an explanation, the position will be that, by a mere coincidence, there has been faulty estimating in two separate Departments both of them affecting the normal changes in the secretarial duties and both of them arising in a year and in Departments where extra money is required because of the Ministers of the Crown Act. In view of the obvious doubt which surrounds the whole question, perhaps it would be possible for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to deal with the duties of the Lord Privy Seal and any change in those duties which makes it unnecessary to have a Supplementary Estimate for the whole of the increase in his salary.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: I ask the Financial Secretary to give some more details to the Committee. It is strange that during the discussion of these Supplementary Estimates

it was not until hon. Members on these benches practically insisted on repeating their cries for information that we received from a single Minister a careful and studied statement. In no business undertaking would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be allowed to get away with a proposition such as this, and carelessly to say to his co-directors that if they forced him to give details, then, of course, he would accede to their request. It is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's duty to submit those details. I warn him that if he insists on these methods, he will be forced, following the precedent in this Cabinet, to accept a more important and higher job in the future. This Vote deals with three or four different items. First of all, it shows that the original Estimate was £1,850 short. The Financial Secretary says that that is due to the increase in Ministers' salaries, and that we are dealing with an increase per annum. When did that increase take place?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The increase took place as from 1st July, 1937. I thought I had made that point clear.

Mr. Davidson: That point was made clear. Added to that point, however, it says here that the extra amount of £2,250 is
partially offset by savings due to changes in the secretarial staff,
but not one word of how much was saved, not one itemised account of what the statement means. My hon. Friend was entitled to think that this meant that reductions had been made in another quarter in order to bring about this saving. Then we have a third statement:
The sum of £1,000 has been advanced from the Civil Contingencies Fund and a corresponding amount of this Vote is required to enable repayment to be made to that Fund.
Here we have three different statements with only one explanation given, namely, that an increase of salary took place. I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should recognise that the public outside are keenly interested, and that while we may tolerate a certain degree of carelessness and bad workmanship in other Departments of the Government, at least I, as a Scottish Member, am going to insist on the financial aspect of the Government's affairs being kept clearly and well balanced. Therefore, I insist on a detailed account with regard to the three


points that I have mentioned, and I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not think I am unduly pressing him for information, but we have our constituencies to face.
We have in Scotland severe critics of the financial policy of the Government. We have people who are earning, under the jurisdiction of this Government, from 37s. to £2 10s. a week, and they want to know. They have in their own homes and small shops to supply, for Income Tax purposes, legitimate balance-sheets showing clearly every item of expenditure, and I may add that I think the Committee is entitled to ask what part of this salary is being spent in Australia by the Lord Privy Seal at present.

The Chairman: That is not in order.

Mr. Davidson: I accept your immediate Ruling, Sir Dennis, but if I had the necessary time I have no doubt I could convince you of my correctness. I want those three points settled, and I want the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to take his duties seriously and to recognise that on this side there are men returned from many constituencies by people who are interested in the financial affairs of the nation. As such, we desire this information, not because we want to keep him late to-night or to interfere with his arrangements, but because we want to see to it that he earns the salary that he himself takes, and does not fall into the habit that afflicts many Members opposite of taking their duties too lightly.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: This is a customary Debate, of the kind that we get from time to time, but it is rather amusing, so I thought I would consult the Civil Estimates for the present year, which the last speaker has not taken the trouble to look at. The Lord Privy Seal in the original Estimate was to have £2,000, and the private secretary to the Lord Privy Seal £1,250, which is more in relation to the particular job than most private secretaries have. There appear these figures, "£800—£30—£1,100" which means that he starts his job at £800, goes up by annual increments of £30, and reaches the maximum of £1,100. He has, in addition, an allowance of £150.

Mr. Davidson: Are you suggesting that after being presented with the document

containing the Supplementary Estimates by the Government, I should also consult the document you are reading?

The Chairman: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to address questions through the Chair. I will also go a little further and say that certain of the discussions we have had just lately and a discussion on the manner in which the accounts of the National Exchequer are presented are outside what can be discussed on this Vote.

Mr. Davidson: May I apologise if I have gone outside the convenience of Debate? I merely tried to ascertain from the hon. Member through you what he is asking me to read. If I asked him any question I can assure you I meant no disrespect to the Chair.

Mr. Williams: The document from which I was quoting was sent to the hon. Member about 11 months ago. It was sent in separate parts and this is the bound indexed volume, and sets forth all the information for which the hon. Gentleman has asked. The document at present before the House is merely supplementary to it; and anyone debating it ought to study the larger document first.

Mr. Buchanan: On a point of Order. Are we now having a lesson on Supplementary Estimates, or are we discussing the Estimates?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman had better leave that to me.

Mr. Buchanan: But what are we discussing? Are we discussing how to read Supplementary Estimates or are we discussing the Supplementary Estimates dealing with certain Departments?

The Chairman: We are discussing one Supplementary Estimate, and if the hon. Member will leave it to me, I will do my best to keep order.

Mr. H. G. Williams: As I was pointing out, there is one appointment with a starting salary of £800 rising to £1,100. If there is a change during a particular year there is an automatic saving of £300. If that is taken into account, then clearly the speech of the hon. Member for Mary-hill (Mr. Davidson) need not have been made. I suggest that it is a good thing when Members are engaged in discussing Supplementary Estimates if they at least took the trouble to read the documents placed at their disposal.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I can only say that if the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) had been the Lord Privy Seal I should not have risen, because I am sure he would have been well worth the money, if only because he would not then have been in the position of being schoolmaster to his own Front Bench. It would be a good thing if the same course were adopted with regard to the last Office that we were discussing, namely, that of the Lord President of the Council. I understood last year, when we were discussing the matter under the Bill that was passed, that these two offices would normally be filled by what one might call—

The Chairman: Order!

Mr. Ede: I want to suggest that this is an office that is redundant as it is at present—

The Chairman: That is quite out of order, as I have already told the hon. Member.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: A colleague sitting here has said that we do not want to oppose the Vote, and I concur with him. We do not want to hold up the business, but I want to ask one thing of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and in the most earnest manner, and I know that I can trust his word. Can he assure me that the money for which he is asking is being well spent—

The Chairman: Order!

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) has told us that if a certain change takes place that would account for a saving of £300. It is a great pity that he was not in the Committee during the discussion on the previous Vote, because he would then know that no particulars have yet been given as to what the saving consists of. On the previous Vote some indication was given as to the manner in which the saving was arrived at, and it has been said with regard to this Vote that the savings in salaries were due to normal changes in staff. If they were normal, a Supplementary Estimate ought not to be required. Will the Financial Secretary now tell us what are the actual changes in the secretarial staff, what is the

saving effected, and which of them could not have been budgeted for on the main Estimate?

10.37 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: There is no mystery here of which I cannot dispose. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) did get very near to the truth when he spoke of the private secretary. The private secretary to the late Lord Privy Seal was an officer at the very top of the scale, and the new Lord Privy Seal has taken a private secretary who, while he is an officer of the same grade, is at the minimum of the scale. That disposes of the point.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,850, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Lord Privy Seal

CLASS III.

LAW CHARGES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Law Officers' Department, the Salaries and Expenses of the Departments of His Majesty's Procurator-General and of the Solicitor for the Affairs of His Majesty's Treasury, and of the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions; the Costs of Prosecutions, of other Legal Proceedings, and of Parliamentary Agency.

10.39 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The expenditure under Sub-head E, which is the only Sub-head affected by this Supplementary Estimate, during the years 1935 and 1936 was £13,060 and £15,170 respectively. In the nine months ended 31st December, 1937, £15,400 had been spent. Experience has shown that expenditure in the last quarter of the financial year is always heavier than in any other quarter, and it is now estimated that £22,000 will be needed for this purpose for the whole year. The Estimate at the beginning of the year was £18,000 but it is now estimated that £22,000 will be required. The activities of the Departments concerned with the Defence services and Trunk


Roads account for a large part of the increase. A number of arbitrations arising out of the acquisition of land have been involved and considerably more work has devolved upon the Treasury Solicitor. Then there were hearings before the tribunal which was set up by agreement between the Mineral Owners' Joint Committee and His Majesty's Government in connection with the unification of coal royalties.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: What sort of item does the additional sum cover? Does any part of it go to augment the fees of the Law Officers of the Crown? When costs and fees are referred to, what is meant by costs? If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will answer those questions we may be in a better position to know whether to support this increase.

10.42 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The largest item is £2,840, which is for the hearings before the tribunal which was set up by agreement. It was all Government-side expenditure in preparing the case and for the fees that had to be paid. The preparation of the case required technical experts. I do not think I should be in order in enlarging very much upon that preparation, but the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it was highly technical in character. A great part of the expenditure was laid out in that way, in costs and fees to technical experts.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Not to the Law Officers of the Crown?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I think I am right in saying "No, not to the Law Officers of the Crown." It was a highly technical matter, and I think it was right that the best technical advice was obtained on the subject. Almost three-quarters of the Estimate is for that cost. The rest is due to extra work in connection with the defence services and trunk roads.

Mr. Batey: Are we to understand that expenses in connection with the mineral rights inquiry are not to be covered by the Coal Commission?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Not this expenditure. These were expenses that we had to bear as our share of the cost of the inquiry.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Law Officers' Department, the Salaries and Expenses of the Departments of His Majesty's Procurator-General and of the Solicitor for the Affairs of His Majesty's Treasury, and of the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions; the Costs of Prosecutions, of other Legal Proceedings, and of Parliamentary Agency.

CLASS IV.

NATIONAL LIBRARY (SCOTLAND).

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Library, including certain Grants in Aid.

10.44 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Mr. Keppie, a retired book-seller of Dalkeith, which happens to be in my constituency, very generously made a bequest of the residue of his estate to be shared equally by the National Library of Scotland and the National Gallery of Scotland. The share of the National Library is £2,956. No conditions were attached to the bequest. Under Section 10 of the National Library of Scotland Act, 1925, which established the library, all moneys received by the Board of Trustees from any other source than moneys provided by Parliament, and not subject to any specific direction or condition (as in this case) have to be applied as Appropriations-in-Aid of the moneys provided by Parliament. The Trustees of the Library, not unnaturally, represented to us that they wished to hold this bequest as a permanent endowment, and to preserve its identity, and the Treasury agreed to this course. The only legal method of achieving this object was to credit it as an appropriation in aid of the Vote, and to vote an equivalent sum as a grant in aid. This is a rather unusual procedure, but is necessary for the purpose of putting the matter in order. We recognise that the desire of the Trustees to preserve this bequest under its name is a proper one, and so we have felt it necessary to adopt the procedure I have indicated.
Sub-head C (Incidental Expenses) relates to another bequest of a very valuable


collection of rare editions, numbering about 1,500 volumes, belonging to the late Mr. Hugh Sharp, of Hill of Tarvit, Fife. This gentleman was unfortunately killed in the dreadful railway accident at Castlecary, and his representatives presented to the National Library this very valuable collection. It was a very generous gift indeed, and I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to their generosity. A condition was attached—quite a proper condition—that the volumes should be immediately removed and housed in the Library. To cover these removal charges it is estimated that an additional £50 will suffice. As we have budgeted very closely on this sub-head, we had not enough money to meet this extra charge.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I think the Financial Secretary's explanation is on the whole entirely satisfactory, but I should like to ask what was the approximate value of the bequest in the second case, on which this sum of £50 was expended. That will enable us to judge whether the sum was out of proportion or not.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I am not in a position to give the exact figure, but it runs into a number of thousands of pounds for the 1,500 volumes. I would rather not give a figure without having accurate information before me, but I am satisfied that the removal costs were quite proper.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Benson: Do I understand that the Keppie bequest fund will be invested and kept as a separate fund?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Yes.

Mr. Benson: In that case. I assume that the interest will appear in future as an Appropriation-in-Aid.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I should have to look into that point. I think the intention is that the Library should benefit from the bequest and the interest accruing from the fund, but I should have to look into it.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses

of the National Library, including certain Grants-in-Aid.

CLASS V.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £197,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the payment of Old Age Pensions, Pensions to Blind Persons, and for certain Administrative Expenses in connection therewith.

10.50 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: This is a larger sum than those with which we have just been dealing, but the explanation is quite simple. The Estimates for old age pensions are framed substantially on the anticipated number of pensions in payment at the 1st April in the year. This is based on the number in payment on the previous 31st December with adjustments for new pensioners and mortality among previous pensioners. It is a subject for actuarial calculation, but it is not always possible to be accurate in that calculation. The number of new pensioners coming into pension is fairly steady, but the death rate for the quarter ending 31st March is a very uncertain factor. The first quarter of the year is the one which always shows the heaviest mortality amongst old people. On the number of deaths in that quarter a great deal depends, as far as budgeting is concerned. Last year the death rate for the March quarter was substantially less than had been anticipated, and the consequence was that we had a great many more pensions to pay.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £197,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the payment of Old Age Pensions, Pensions to Blind Persons, and for certain Administrative Expenses in connection therewith.

CLASS VI.

DEVELOPMENT GRAVTS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for Grants to Public Utility Undertakings in Great Britain.

10.52 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I see there is an Amendment to reduce this Vote, but I imagine that it is only for the purpose of asking for information. The Vote provides the amount required to meet payments to which the Treasury is already committed under Section 2 of Part I of the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act, 1929. The purpose of the part of the Act in question was to promote employment by accelerating development schemes of an economic nature to be carried out by certain classes of public utility companies, such as gas, electricity, water and railway companies. Grants were made by the Treasury after consultation with an advisory committee and with the concurrence of the appropriate Government Departments. The power to give assistance expired in August, 1932, so there is no question of new commitments, but there are certain commitments under the Act which we meet from year to year. £780,000 was voted for the current financial year, but certain maturities have taken place which necessitate a Supplementary Estimate this year.
There is a grant towards a particular group of three schemes. I shall not mention the undertakings concerned unless I am pressed very strongly. It is not usual to give publicity to them in the House. The grant was authorised in 1931 on the understanding that any variation between one claim and another of the allocation of the total expenditure ranking for grant would be subject to the approval of the Treasury. At a fairly early stage additional expenditure was incurred in respect of one of the schemes. When the claim for grant on that excess expenditure was lodged, the company in question was informed that the actual payment of grant on any excess expenditure over the original allocation for that scheme must be deferred until the completion of all three schemes enabled the final picture to be given. When the original Estimate for 1937 was framed there was no indication that the stage to which I have referred had been reached, but when the financial year had been entered upon we were informed that all the three works had been completed, and that it was desired to reach a settlement as to re-allocation. The Treasury were satisfied, after consultation with the appropriate Department, that the re-allocation could be agreed. They, therefore, made a settlement.
There was a second company, to which a grant had been authorised. In 1931, this company had voluntarily offered to forgo presentation of its claim at the time, while reserving the right to resort to it later on. The company has come and asked for payment of its claim, which had been agreed to under the Act, and we are satisfied that they are entitled to receive payment.
For these two reasons, we have found it necessary, for the first time in the administration of this Act, to present a Supplementary Estimate. It is an Act in the administration of which we ought to be able to estimate expenditure accurately and to avoid Supplementary Estimates, but these two maturities could not, I am certain, have been foreseen. We had obligations to meet, and we have decided to meet them. This has necessitated coming to Parliament for a Supplementary Estimate.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman gave this explanation, because this had appeared a very unreasonable proceeding. I take it that there is no considerable likelihood of such a thing occurring again.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, as regards the case, in respect of which there was an undertaking, under which the company could come back and ask for a grant later on, that I have made careful search, and I find that there are no other cases of this kind.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Kirkwood: Who were the firms which got the Grant-in-Aid? Do the Government simply hand this money over to these firms and have no control over them, or do they retain control over this money, which they have given to bolster up these firms? I would also like to ask whether the Government, when they make those grants, insert any clause to ensure that the Fair Wages Clause will be observed.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is either too late or too early with his questions. He can raise this subject on the main Estimate, but not on the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Kirkwood: It is no use submitting an Estimate to us unless we can get


information. The only way we can force the Government to give us information is by dividing the Commitee if we do not get it. I am sure that I am putting a fair question. I can never forget that the present Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, in making a grant to the Cunard Company to enable them to furnish the 534, which is now the "Queen Mary," although I pressed him, neglected to see that the Fair Wages Clause was observed in that contract. I want to know from the Financial Secretary whether they have taken any precautions in this matter, and I would like to know the names of the firms?

The Chairman: The names of the firms are another matter, and the right hon. and gallant Member can give that information, but the hon. Member can raise the other questions only on the main Estimate and not on the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: If the terms were such as my hon. Friend suggests, would he not be in order in asking whether, before this money was finally paid over, the Treasury should give an assurance that the terms had been carried out?

The Chairman: That assurance, I understood, had been given, but the terms would not be in order.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: If those were part of the original terms is my right hon. Friend not justified in asking whether the Treasury is satisfied that the contract was carried out?

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is putting to me a question which has not arisen at all. It is a totally different question from that which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) asked.

11.3 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The commitments are under an Act of Parliament which was passed when hon. Members opposite were in office, and any terms that were attached were framed by them.

Mr. Buchanan: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give the name of the Act?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I certainly gave it, but I will give it again. It was

Section 2 of Part I of the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act, 1929. Any terms laid down in that Act have been observed before the money was handed over, but I do not think that it would be in order to discuss that upon this Supplementary Estimate. The Treasury have assured themselves that these terms were observed. I said that I preferred not to name the firms following the practice consistently followed by successive Governments on both sides of the House since the Act was passed. I indicated that one undertaking is a very large transport undertaking, and that the other is one dealing with public services.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for Grants to Public Utility Undertakings in Great Britain.

CLASS VII.

STATIONERY AND PRINTING.

Motion made, and Question proposed:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £308,160, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for Stationery. Printing, Paper, Binding and Printed Books for the Public Service; for the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates.

11.5 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: There are several causes which have contributed to the increased expenditure which has necessitated this Supplementary Estimate. The causes are the provision necessary for additional staff and revised salary scales; the exceptional rise in the price of paper which has accounted for a very large sum; the introduction of the 45-hour week in the printing and kindred trades, which was adopted in the Stationery Office as from 4th October, 1937; the rise in the price of office sundries; additional publicity in connection with the Health and National Fitness campaign; increased requirements of other public Departments in connection with Press advertisements; and increased requirements of stationery, printing, and office machinery for public Departments generally. These causes amount to a total of £437,010, against which there are Appropriations-in-Aid of £128,850. By far the largest item is due


to the exceptional rise in the price of paper, amounting to £220,000.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: A number of highly controversial points appear to arise in this Supplementary Estimate. In the first place, there is the increase in the cost of paper. Am I to understand that that is due to the tariff that has been put on paper? Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will give us information on that score. To whom does this additional sum go in the increased cost of paper? Another item is the additional publicity that is being arranged by the Departments. It is not very long since one of my right hon. Friends put down a question, the answer to which was given in writing, relating to the additional publicity of various Government Departments. This is a matter to which the Committee is entitled to give very careful attention. There are some cases where the publicity given to a Department is in favour of the public service, and we all recognise the advantage and value of that, but we cannot altogether shut our eyes to the fact that some of the publicity is definitely designed to assist the Ministers themselves and, not to put too fine a point upon it, to boost the qualifications of Ministers and recommend themselves to the electors. A very large additional item is involved in this Supplementary Estimate, and it would be interesting to know how much is due to this new publicity on behalf of the Government. There are also other points which require examination.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Mabane: I should like to raise a point on the question of Press advertising on behalf of other Departments. There is an Appropriation-in-Aid of £18,000, presumably coming from other Departments to defray the cost of these advertisements. Can the Financial Secretary tell us why the whole of the cost of advertising on behalf of the Department is not met by Appropriations-in-Aid contributed by the Departments?

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I am surprised at the tremendous increase attributed to the price of paper. I have some responsibility for a newspaper and while I have been aware of a rise in cost, I have not been aware of a rise which amounts to 33⅓ per

cent. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman slipped in an item which he knew would appeal to hon. Members on this side, as to improved conditions for the workers but if I am not mistaken the increase due to improved conditions works out at about 2½ per cent. which is trivial compared with the increase in the cost of paper. I gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) that the total increase is due not to the increased cost of paper but to the increased use of paper. Perhaps the Minister would give us a little more detailed information to show what was the percentage increase in the price of paper and the increase in the quantity of paper used.

11.12 p.m.

Sir Hugh Seely: This is one of the biggest increases in these Supplementary Estimates. Under Sub-head E relating to paper the additional sum required is £239,000. This Sub-head is divided into various items, the largest of which is departmental stationery, envelopes, wrapping and household paper, account books, etc., amounting to £115,000. This is an enormous sum, and we ought to have a little more information about it. One would have thought that, in the matter of departmental stationery, it would have been possible to have budgeted with sufficient accuracy to avoid the necessity for a Supplementary Estimate of this high figure and I hope we shall have a fuller explanation.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. A. Reed: The question has been raised on the increased price of paper. It is a subject of which I know something, having some connection with the trade, although I am not interested in, nor have I anything to do with, the Stationery Office. My hon. Friends above the Gangway will be interested to know that their friends in Soviet Russia are largely responsible for this increase. Paper is made from wood pulp and the raw wood comes very largely from Russia, and last year our Russian friends doubled the price of the wood from which pulp is made. The rise in the price of the raw material is due to causes over which we have no control and no doubt hon. Members above the Gangway will be glad to know that their Russian friends are getting so much money.

Mr. Garro Jones: I hesitate to rise merely to offer a tu quoque to the hon. Member who has just spoken but I must remind him that the paper dealt with in the Estimate is not newsprint, made from pulp, coming from Russia. These envelopes and so forth are made from esparto grass which comes from Morocco, which is under the control of the hon. Member's friend General Franco.

Mr. Reed: I happen to know that by far the largest proportion of the paper used by His Majesty's Government is made from wood pulp. A small percentage is made from esparto grass, which largely comes from Algiers and Tunis, practically nothing from Morocco, and since the war nothing from Spain.

Mr. Garro Jones: A percentage of the paper is made from esparto grass and of wood pulp from Russia.

Mr. Reed: Russia imports timber for wood pulp to Germany, France, Norway, Sweden and other parts of the world.

11.16 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The right hon. Gentleman opposite has asked me about the rise in the price of paper, and how much is due to tariffs. I can assure him that it is not due to any rise in tariffs, but largely due to the increase in the price of the raw material, which brought about a very steep rise in the cost of paper in this country. The method of buying paper by the Stationery Office is to have ad hoc tenders for their requirements from British mills. They find this the best method, and while there has been this steep rise in price I think there is a tendency for the position to ease a little.
As to the question put by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), the proportion of the increase due to cost and due to increased consumption, I think the actual provision is £220,000 for the rise in the price of paper; for the additional expense in connection with the Ministry of Labour, and the health campaign it is £5,250; and for the increase in the requirements of other Departments £13,750. The increase in the price, therefore, is by far the largest amount. I regret that it should be so, but it is due to circumstances over which we have no control. The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to deal with the question of publicity.

It affects many Departments and I am speaking for the Stationery Office, which has to provide the material. I am satisfied that the requirements which were made upon us have been met.

11.20 p.m.

Major Sir Ralph Glyn: There is an expenditure under sub-head I upon which I should like some information. Under sub-head I (e), Press advertisements on behalf of other Departments account for £27,000, and in the Appropriations-in-Aid there is an amount of £18,000 for advertisements. I do not quite understand the discrepancy between the two figures. Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say why it is that these advertisements which are done by the Stationery Office for other Departments do not appear in the Estimates of those Departments?

11.21 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I cannot give a full answer to my hon. and gallant Friend to-night, but I will do so on another occasion.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £308,160, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding and Printed Books for the Public Service; for the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates.

CLASS VIII.

SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £30,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for Superannuation and other non-effective Annual Allowances, Additional Allowances and Gratuities under Sundry Statutes; Compassionate Allowances, Gratuities and Supplementary Pensions awarded by the Treasury and, under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, by the Civil Service Committee for Northern Ireland.

11.23 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The Treasury is required to pay automatically certain awards, pensions and gratuities as and when they become due. They are not sums susceptible of accurate actuarial calculation. It will be observed that, with the exception of Sub-head L


(Northern Ireland—Pensions and Gratuities), the expenditure on which is recoverable from the Government of Northern Ireland, the additional sum required is in respect of single non-recurrent payments, which, as clearly stated in the original Estimate, cannot be predicted with accuracy. Taking Sub-head C, which mainly accounts for this Supplementary Estimate, the number and amount of the lump sums payable would cause little or no difficulty if every officer retired precisely at the age of 60, but as hon. Members know, officers may be retired on grounds of ill-health at any age, or they may be retained in the service for a period after 60, up to the age of 65. Moreover, the amount of the lump sum "additional allowances" may vary very greatly. Therefore, it is very difficult to budget this particular Sub-head accurately.
The main outstanding feature of this Sub-head is that there was a rapid growth in expenditure during the last six months of the preceding year, and that resulted in an excess on the Vote as a whole. That increased expenditure has been fully maintained during the current year. In a Vote which later I shall bring before the Committee, the point has been specifically referred to by the Public Accounts Committee. I am bringing in this Supplementary Estimate in order properly to cover ourselves in this matter, as the rate of expenditure shows no sign of diminishing under this Sub-head. That is the reason for the greater part of this Supplementary Estimate.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am glad that the Financial Secretary is acting on the advice of the Public Accounts Committee in dealing with the matter in a constitutional manner, and as this was practically an automatic expenditure of money, I do not think the Committee need take any time in discussing it.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £30,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for Superannuation and other non-effective Annual Allowances, Additional Allowances and Gratuities under Sundry Statutes; Compassionate Allowances, Gratuities and Supplementary Pensions awarded by the Treasury and, under the

Government of Ireland Act, 1920, by the Civil Service Committee for Northern Ireland.

CLASS VI.

CLEARING OFFICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Anglo-Spanish, Anglo-Rumanian, Anglo-Italian and Anglo-Turkish Clearing Offices under the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934.

11.26 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The Committee will not wish me to discuss the policy of clearing offices, nor should I be in order in doing so, but I will explain why it is necessary to come for this token Estimate to-night. When the original Estimate for 1937 was presented in February, 1937, the Anglo-Italian Clearing Agreement had been in force for a comparatively short time, and only a very approximate estimate of the amount to be provided for the current year was possible. It happens that additional staff has had to be provided at an extra cost of £3,000, and additional provision was also required for what is called payment to agents; the only agent in question is the Bank of England, which holds the Controller's accounts into which payments are made by United Kingdom debtors. The payments are based on the amount of sterling collected by the Clearing Offices, and since the actual receipts of the Anglo-Rumanian and Anglo-Turkish Offices considerably exceeded the amount which might reasonably have been anticipated, the additional amount required under that Sub-head is £6,000. The total increased expenditure on the Vote is thus £9,000.
As regards the receipts to be set against the expenditure of the Clearing Offices the amounts to be received in any year in respect of commission depend on the amount of sterling available for distribution to United Kingdom creditors and the speed at which it is paid out. The excess of the Clearing Office receipts over the original Estimate resulted in an increase in the payments on which commission is charged, and an additional sum of £8,990 will be appropriated in aid. To make this appropriation I have to come to Parliament with a token Supplementary Estimate of £10. There is no


change in policy of any kind, but the amount of business transacted has been more than was anticipated, and it is therefore necessary to increase certain expenses which are met by corresponding appropriations-in-aid.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am not quite clear whether the items on the receipts side and the items on the payments side arise from the same or from different causes. I understand that the amount of business which the Clearing Office had to transact is considerably greater than was anticipated, and that the increase in receipts does not come at any rate solely, even if mainly, from that cause, but owing to a change in the exchange value of sterling. I should like to be clear whether the increase in business has re-suited in larger receipts, and, if so, what part of the additional receipts roughly is due to that cause. I should also like to know whether the change in quantity of the work is due to the satisfactory smooth working of the scheme, or whether again it is a pure accident?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: To some extent trade is seasonal, and at certain times of the year there is a great flow of business in one direction. In point of fact, trade has flowed rather more freely in the months since the Estimate was made. That has brought about an increase in the direction referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. He asked me whether the scheme was working smoothly. In certain periods there have been difficulties. In the Anglo-Spanish clearing, for instance—

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think that that arises on this Vote.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the cause of the increase has been an increase in trade which was not expected at the time the Estimates were made.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman told us that the increase was due to the exchange value of sterling. Now he says it is due to trade. What, I imagine, has happened is that it is due partly to one and partly to the other. Could he tell us roughly how much is due to each?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I am afraid I could not give that information to-night.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: The Committee must be interested in one aspect of this Supplementary Estimate, namely, the reference on page 25 to the fact that additional provision has to be made for increased staff owing to the volume of work in the Anglo-Italian Clearing Office, and that the salary provision for the period under review is no less than £3,000. It, therefore, seems that the volume of work to be dealt with by the Clearing Office in the case of Anglo-Italian trade has very much increased. It does not seem, from the provision we are now asked to make, that trade relationships with Italy are proceeding in exactly the smoothest possible way. It seems to indicate that there must be considerable economic disturbance in Italy if there is to be such a vast amount of business going through the Clearing Office which cannot be met by the direct liquidation of liabilities between the traders concerned. If that is the position, there is a great deal in the fears which have been expressed by some of my hon. Friends, especially at Question Time in the last few days, as to the possibility of any further facilities being offered to Italy from this country.

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot discuss that on this Estimate.

Mr. Alexander: With great respect, we are being asked to vote extra public money for the Anglo-Italian Clearing Office, and that extra cost will fall on the taxpayers. Surely we are entitled to ask questions as to the policy of the Government in relation to the matters covered by this office?

The Deputy-Chairman: Not on the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Alexander: It may be a very nice point of procedure, and one must always bow, as far as one gracefully can, to the Ruling of the Chair. It is a little hard on the taxpayer, who is asked to find the money, that when he wants to know why he has to pay, the answer he gets is that the matter cannot be raised on this Supplementary Estimate, the very occasion when he has to provide the money. Here is the sum—£3,000 extra


required. In view of the provision we are asked to make, the Department of Overseas Trade and the Treasury ought to give some attention to the complaints which are made regarding the time British traders have to wait for settlement of accounts in respect of Anglo-Italian trade. A number of business men have mentioned the matter to me, and I have also had particulars of a large number of other cases—concerning other countries besides Italy—in which trade has been lost because of the long interval between the execution of orders and the receipt of the cash in this country by the tortuous route of the clearing house. If the economic difficulties between the two countries involve this tortuous arrangement and the increased volume of work calls for another £3,000, then we axe entitled to say—without embarking on a long Debate which would be contrary to your Ruling, Captain Bourne—that it is an additional warning to the House and to the Government not to furnish any further facilities in the way of credit to that country in her present attitude.

11.37 p.m.

Mr. Kirkwood: I wish to call attention to the item dealing with payments to agents. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury told us that these agents were the Bank of England. There is £6,000 extra for them, and I should like to know what extra service they have given for that money.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: We have been told that this is a Vote for only £10, but on examination of the Estimate one sees rather big figures, and there has been mention of £3,000 in respect of Anglo-Italian trade and £6,000 for agents. I agree that the hour is late, and that we want to get away, and that is why items are sometimes passed over which ought to be examined more fully, but I must ask for a fuller explanation of these two items, because they total £9,000, and but for them there would have been a balance in hand.

11.38 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: When the Act of 1934 which authorised the setting up of Clearing Offices was passed it was provided that expenses of those Clearing Offices should be borne on Votes, but the Clearing Offices were entitled to

charge a commission on the sums they distributed, and the intention of Parliament was that the rate of commission should be sufficient to cover the expenses, including the payment of agents and "allied services." The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) seems to see something sinister in the reference to agents. There is nothing sinister about it. It is work done by the Bank of England in connection with the Clearing Offices, and involves the handling of very large sums of money. It is the intention that the expenses should be recovered from those who use the Clearing Offices, and it is expected that in the present year the receipts will be sufficient for the purpose, but I have to present a Supplementary Estimate for £10 to enable me to appropriate the money which is coming in against these additional outlays.
I agree with one point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), whose arguments I would like to follow, but I am afraid that I, too, would be out of order. I agree that clearing is a tortuous method that we should like to do away with. This Supplementary Estimate will not enlarge our commitments in respect of setting up clearings, but if there are delays in payment it is all the more necessary to have the requisite staff to deal with the matter.

Mr. Alexander: Will the extra salaries involve an extra rate of commission on account of the business passing through?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The right hon. Gentleman asks me a question on which I think I might reasonably ask for notice. There is no intention of using the taxpayers' money in this connection.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the salaries and expenses of the Anglo-Spanish, Anglo-Rumanian, Anglo-Italian and Anglo-Turkish Clearing Offices under the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934.

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

POST OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £900,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day


of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones.

11.42 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): Out of the total amount of this Supplementary Estimate, £530,000 is for engineering salaries, etc., and a very similar sum, £520,000, is for contract work. There is also additional expenditure of £100,000 for motors arising out of the additional business that has been done by the Post Office. It is a greater charge than was expected. When there is new work, part is charged to capital and part is charged to current expenditure. Rather more of the charge is current expenditure than was expected.
The interesting part of the Vote is that a large amount of it is due to the very great increase in the engineering staff of the Post Office, which in itself is due to the increase of business. We thought that the increase in staff would be 3,500; as a matter of fact it amounted to no fewer than 6,000 up to the end of the current month. The total number of the engineering staff is 42,000, which is a measure of the amount of work which is being done by the Post Office for the public, and particularly by the engineering staff. Tremendous development occurred in 1936, when we made an extension of telephones in use of nearly 250,000, and we drew very heavily on our stores. Now we are replenishing our stores in preparation for further extension which, the Committee will be glad to hear, is still going on. We are replenishing so as to have plenty in hand for future development. There are numerous details in this Vote, and perhaps it would meet the convenience of the Committee if I dealt with particular points raised by hon. Members rather than go into details with which they may not be specially concerned.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Viant: It is rather deplorable that an Estimate relating to such an important Department should be brought before the Committee at this hour of the night. It appears to me that the Treasury is the one Department that is interested in any of these Estimates, but nevertheless from my point of view the Post Office is a Department of considerable importance as far as this Committee is concerned. I wish to put a few questions to the Postmaster-General

in the hope of eliciting a little more information and, what is more important, of enabling the Committee to appreciate the extraordinary development that is taking place in the Post Office.
On page 28, under Sub-head A.5, we are told that additional provision is required to cover the cost of handling a larger volume of stores. I should be glad if we could have some further explanation of what that means. Is it that more buildings are necessary for the warehousing of stores, or it is a question of extending existing warehouses? Subhead B relates to additional provision for training and other services. I take it that this means the training of more men, and if that is so I think the Committee' will be interested to hear from what source these men are drawn, and for which departments they are being trained. As regards sub-head C, I would ask for some information on the extent to which the regionalisation recommended by the Bridgeman Committee has developed.
A very interesting and, I think, helpful proposal is referred to in Sub-head F, which relates to grants to refreshment clubs not provided in the original Estimate. The Committee will be interested to know just what developments have taken place in connection with these refreshment clubs, of the advantages of which to the employés of the Department hon. Members may not be completely aware. I note that £70,000 is required for uniform clothing, and the Committee will be interested to learn to what extent this amount is necessitated by the increase in the price of these uniforms. In existing circumstances, and in the light of the Estimates that have already been considered, the Committee will no doubt be prepared to expect that there has been a considerable increase in the price that the Department has been called upon to pay for uniforms.
To what extent have accidents increased and can we have a comparative figure? Are they in any way due to increased mechanisation and have any of them arisen as a result of the motor transport used by the Department? A sum of £520,000 is required for the building up of stocks. Does this mean that the Department is buying in anticipation of an advance in prices, and has the right hon. Gentleman set up a committee to watch closely the operation of rings, because already I understand the Department


has felt the effect of the operation of certain rings in and outside this country. A very large sum, £430,000, is required for the training of extra workmen. I have asked before from what source these workmen are to be obtained. I understand that the business that is being done by the Savings Bank is developing very rapidly. A sum of £118,000 is required. What is this for? Is it for the purpose of any special branch of development connected with the Savings Bank?

11.54 p.m.

Mr. E. Smith: A large proportion of this additional sum is required for the purpose of carrying out engineering work. Some time ago the Parliamentary Secretary visited Stoke-on-Trent and stated at a social function that in the near future an announcement would be made regarding a new site for a new post office.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid the question of the erection of a new post office cannot be raised on this Vote.

Mr. Smith: During the past 12 months according to answers I have received, steps are being taken to find a suitable site—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot pursue that on this Estimate. It arises on Post Office and Revenue Buildings.

Mr. Smith: I was asking whether any of this additional sum has been spent in that survey with regard to the site, and a definite statement with regard to the surveying that has taken place.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: The Estimate shows that there has been a considerable expansion of work during the year, and that much of it has been let out to subcontractors. Will the Postmaster-General tell us what steps are taken to ensure that the fair wages clause is observed by these sub-contractors? He is aware of a case I brought to his notice some time ago, in respect to which, after making investigations, he found it necessary to make some adjustments. If that case had not been brought to his notice, some poor workmen, who are unorganised and unable to help themselves, would have been deprived of the money which the Department has been able to get for them. Is

it not possible that there is a multiplicity of such cases?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must raise that on the main Estimate.

11.57 p.m.

Mr. Kirkwood: There is an item relating to additional provision which is required in consequence of (a) a large increase in the number of workmen to be trained owing to continued telephone development, and (b) the expansion of the works programme chargeable against the Vote. Do the Post Office make a point of carrying out these works, as far as possible, through their own Works Department, and will the Postmaster-General see that such of the work as they are not able to carry out—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman knows that this item deals with salaries paid by the Post Office. Local contracts are another matter.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will you allow the Assistant Postmaster-General to reply to that, Captain Bourne?

11.58 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: On page 29, there is an additional provision of £4,000 for losses through default. Is there no scheme of fidelity bond to meet cases of default and theft? Is there no insurance—

The Deputy-Chairman: That is a matter of general policy.

11.59 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: It is very disconcerting for Members of the Opposition to be faced with a Supplementary Estimate of this importance at midnight. The Department is one of the most valuable Departments of the State. They have called forth in the last few years considerable praise from all sections of the business community as well as from many Departments for the manner in which the general work of that great Department and its large series of commercial and productive undertakings is proceeding. We do not at all desire to-night to advance criticisms against the political Heads of this Department or the manner of dealing with what must necessarily be very heavy and large administrative changes following upon the development of the work of such a Department. On the other hand, I am sure that the Postmaster-General will see that there is something in the point of


view of criticism or praise of Members of the House of Commons who watch the Civil Votes and who really feel that, in relation to the national Budget for the year, there should be something like close budgeting, although one would make more allowances for a revenue-earning Department like the Post Office than for other Departments. Nevertheless, when you are faced with a gross additional sum of £1,500,000 required for the year, one begins to wonder whether there has been quite the foresight, and the forensic concentration upon the possible developments of the year when the original Estimates were prepared and submitted to Parliament. I think that the Postmaster-General might be willing, as head of the Department, to make a statement in Committee of Supply—this matter has been raised again and again in the House of Commons—as to the necessity, if we are to have anything like stable financing, for keeping much closer to the actual estimated expenditure for the year without having to submit such large Supplementary Estimates. I hope that that point will be taken note of and replied to.
There are one or two special points that I would like to raise on this very important Supplementary Estimate. I would draw the attention of the Postmaster-General to the anticipated savings on page 27, I do not know whether my hon. Friends, especially those who are interested in the development of the Air Services, have observed that there is an actual saving put down as against the gross Estimate of no less than £287,000 on the conveyance of mails by air. I am not at all clear from the necessarily bald statement that must appear in an accounting statement as to how that sum is arrived at. Is it because the projected use of the Air Mail Service at the time that the original Estimates were drawn has not been followed and that other methods of transmitting mails have been followed instead of that of expanding the Air Mail Service, or is it because the Postmaster-General is able, by a new and wider development of the Air Mail Service, to show an actual net saving on the general transmission of mails of £287,000? I think that that is a very notable point in the opinion of those who are interested in the Air Mail Service, and I should very much like to have information with regard to the matter.
Another point about which I should like to ask arises on page 29 in regard to Item "G 4," which deals with motor vehicles and petrol supply. Here we are asked to provide an additional £100,000, which is accounted for in the main by two items—the increase in the price of petrol and the additional vehicles for the transport of engineering workmen. I do not want to say anything about the vehicles, but I want to ask about the arrangements made by the Post Office for petrol supply. We know that, in the main, combine-firms are engaged in the supply of petrol, whether they are by large contract or by individual supply.

The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is now going on to the general question of Post Office contracts, and that is out of Order on this Vote, which is concerned only with the increased sum required.

Mr. Alexander: I think I am entitled to ask, on a Vote like this, which includes the extra cost of petrol, whether the fact that such extra cost has to be paid is due to the necessity of making contracts with a combine, and whether those contracts could have been made with a non-combine firm in order to save that extra cost. That is a matter of great importance, and I have had a little experience on the subject. Two of the large firms outside the combine work rigidly to a price-level schedule, and there are two others which do not necessarily do so, I think we are entitled to ask whether, in dealing with the expensive brands—

The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is not in order on this occasion, which is concerned with a very small increase on the main Estimate.

Mr. Alexander: I still require an explanation why it is necessary to make this extra payment for petrol and whether proper advantage was taken, and proper arrangements were made, before this extra price was incurred, and whether a better arrangement could have been made with non-combine firms.

The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is putting that point to me; I would remind him of the long-standing rule on Supplementary Estimates that questions of general policy cannot be raised unless the increase is so large that, in the opinion of the Chair, it covers


a new service. The increase with which we are now dealing is a comparatively small one on the original Estimate, which covers the power of the Department to make contracts. The right hon. Gentleman would be quite right in raising this question on a new Estimate.

Mr. Garro Jones: Suppose the Postmaster-General is confronted with an increase in the price of petrol, and one of the firms from whom the Minister is not purchasing petrol offers to supply petrol at a price which does not contain the increase. If the Minister refused to accept the offer and had, as a result, to bring forward a Supplementary Estimate, should we be in order in asking how it came about that he refused that offer? If so, are we not entitled to ask whether he was able to obtain petrol from firms outside the combine and so avoid the necessity of bringing forward this increased expenditure?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has raised a purely hypothetical question.

Mr. Kirkwood: Suppose, as has already happened, that a Post Office sub-contractor did not pay the standard rate of wages, is there any way in which we could raise the matter other than as we have raised it to-night? It is no use our sitting here putting these questions. I want to move that we report Progress unless we get a fair hearing. We are being shut out on every occasion.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman appears to be raising what is again a question of major policy. It has been laid down over and over again by my predecessors that such questions can be raised only on a main Estimate. For that reason he is out of order.

Mr. Alexander: What all of us are anxious not to do—and I prefaced my remarks very carefully because we believe that the Post Office is a fine and great Department—I understand, Captain Bourne, that you want to be bound as far as possible by the actual precedents and procedure followed by the Chairman of Ways and Means in Committee, and I am not in any sense objecting to the control which you rightly desire to have over the course of business, but I feel that in this particular case we are dealing

with a request to the Committee to authorise a subsidiary sum due to an increase in price which, in the opinion of some hon. Members, could have been avoided if the trouble had been taken to obtain the petrol from firms, outside the combines, which were not charging the increased price, and on that I submit that we are speaking in an entirely salient manner purely on the Supplementary Estimate. I therefore hope you will, out of the goodness of your heart, allow the Postmaster-General to reply to the point which has been made. Before I leave that topic, I ought to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this sum for petrol has taken any account at all of the decrease in price. He is as well aware as I am that a decrease took place in the price of petrol a week ago, and therefore he will be working on a decreased contract price, I suppose, for at least five or six weeks of the current financial year, and I should like to know whether an allowance has been made for that.
The other point that I want to mention is in connection with Item I (1), on page 29, in connection with salaries for the increasing number of workmen to be used owing to continued telephone development. While I can understand that some of these large items are almost in the nature of capital expenditure, there is very little set off in regard to increased revenue to be earned. While one wants this kind of work to be extended and developed, I think it would be more satisfactory, looking at it from the point of view of a commercial balance sheet, if we could see more provision made for expected increases in revenue earned.

12.14 a.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): I would like to reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) straight away. He complains, on this Vote of £900,000, that we ought to be able to estimate more closely at the beginning of the year, but the gross Vote is over £70,000,000, and this is really the penalty of success, that our business has increased to such a great extent, even in excess of our former anticipations. The turnover this year has jumped from about £900,000,000 to £963,000,000, and the right hon. Gentleman, even with his great experience of trading, will realise that that is a very large sum. He asked some


questions with regard to petrol. We purchase our petrol, in the usual way with a Government Department, through one central purchasing department. We do not purchase it ourselves, but we get it through this other Department. An agreement was entered into for 1937–38, and there is no doubt about it that we got, through that Government Department, a very good price. Then the right hon. Gentleman asked me a question about anticipated savings and wanted to know how the sum of £287,000 for conveyance of mails by air was arrived at. The saving arises from the fact that certain air mail services which we expected to put in operation this year have been delayed for various reasons that I cannot explain here to-night. There was a saving of £32,000 on certain European services and on the Empire service to Africa and the Indo-Malayan service a saving of £140,000, and on the Atlantic air service which will not be put into operation this year there is a saving of £115,000. It is a very simple matter, and I hope that we shall have these services in operation before very long.
The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) asked about the Fair Wages Clause; I can assure him that both the Postmaster-General and myself keep a very sharp eye on our contractors, to see that they carry out the Clause as sanctioned by this House. We welcome information from hon. Members who may think from time to time that the Fair Wages Clause is not being carried out. Whenever a case arises we deal with it promptly, as we do not want contractors to be getting an undue advantage over the workers or over other contractors. We are very keen about that.

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend apologises to the Minister, but he has had to leave the House.

Sir W. Womersley: He has been here a long time, like ourselves, waiting since eight o'clock to get on with this Vote. I do not wonder that he has had to go away. He wanted to know about the extra payment of wages and salaries in the Stores Department; it is an extra required for the handling of a larger body of stores. Money has been paid out in wages to store-keepers, warehousemen and the workmen needed for handling the stores in and out of stock. He asked

me also about the money included in the Vote to cover the expenses of regionalisation. New telephone areas have been set up in Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, and Bristol. At Cambridge a new telephone area will be started by 28th March. I think the hon. Member would have been satisfied with that, had he been present.
Under one of the headings is an item for the refreshment clubs, in which my right hon. and gallant Friend and myself take some little pride. It is a development for the benefit of the staff. The figure is a capital grant for plant, equipment and furniture for providing amenities for the refreshment clubs. We are out to raise the standard not only of the decorations and other amenities but of the meals provided for the staff. We have been very successful so far.
The next question related to uniform clothing. This sum is divided as follows: Higher prices of materials, mainly wool, amounted to £22,000—there has been, it is true, a drop recently in the price of wool—and £20,000 for growth of staff. Then we improved the quality of the shoes and waterproof material which was being supplied, at a cost of £9,000. A sum of £15,000 is accounted for by arrears in deliveries to stock. The hon. Member then referred to accidents. The increase in the number of accidents was due mainly to making greater use of motor vehicles. The fleet of motor vehicles has been considerably increased, and we now have over 16,000 vehicles, travelling much longer distances. Even with the careful drivers who operate these vehicles, accidents occasionally happen, and they involve a certain amount of expense.
The hon. Member asked a question about contracts, and he was a little concerned as to whether we were being imposed upon by what he called the "ring." He asked what had resulted from the investigation which my right hon. Friend had promised would take place. My right hon. Friend set up a Departmental Committee, and did me the honour of inviting me to be chairman of it. The committee has had a number of meetings with the representatives of the contractors, and the negotiations are still proceeding. The present position may be summed up by saying that the Department has been met in a spirit of co-operation by those representing the


manufacturers. We have every hope that we shall get a satisfactory agreement with those manufacturers and this will commend itself to hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) and the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) asked a question about the salaries of engineers. We had calculated on an increase of 3,500 engineering workmen, but in fact we had to increase the number by 6,000 during the year. We had to take on all those additional men because of the extra work involved by the extended demand for telephone apparatus. We have had to train many of them, because we could not get fully skilled men in the quantity which we required, and we felt that it was the duty of the Department to train good men into skilled workers. As we had the concurrence of the union concerned, there was no difficulty. The salaries and wages of these men and the increased cost of training accounts for some of the additional expenditure. I have often been asked questions about the recruiting of this labour. We get these men through the Employment Exchanges, and we are now getting a few from the training centres set up by the Ministry of Labour for Regular Service men. The total number of engineering workmen is 42,000.

Mr. Kirkwood: Has the Post Office made a point of doing all the work it could itself and not unnecessarily handing it out to sub-contractors?

Sir W. Womersley: I assure the hon. Member that we do all we can. We keep our staff fully employed. All these additional men have been fully occupied all the time. I am sorry to say that on some occasions we have had to work overtime, but we are trying to get over that position. We do not put out one contract more than is absolutely necessary. One hon. Member asked, with regard to the engineering department, whether we were laying in the stocks provided for in this Vote in anticipation of a rise in costs. No. We are getting this material because we require additional engineering stores for the extension of works. We have such a big programme ahead of us that we must build up our stocks, otherwise we shall not be able to carry on with the work. Finally, a question was asked about the Post Office

Savings Bank. This is not a new departure, but our requirement is because of the enormous increase in business. The growth in the deposits of the working classes of this country with this particular department of the Post Office amounted to about £48,000,000 last year, and there was a net increase of half a million depositors.
The amount outstanding is a considerable sum indeed, and that shows that the thrifty working people of this country have faith in the Post Office savings bank. They know who is managing it. I would like to thank the right hon. Member for Hillsborough for his complimentary remarks to both the Postmaster-General and myself, and I can assure him that we do indeed carry on this Department in a sound, businesslike way. I hope it will continue to be carried on in that way for many years to come.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £900,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones.

12.27 a.m.

Mr. Alexander: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury may be willing at this stage to allow this Motion to be carried. We have done a considerable amount of work to-day, and the discussion that we have just concluded shows that the Committee will get more and more restive as the hour gets later. I think it would be better to have the remaining Votes that the right hon. Gentleman had hoped to have got to-night put down for a more decent time of day. In doing so, he will not only let us get home to-night, but I think he will get the Votes outstanding with more celerity ultimately.

12.28 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): It is very nice for me when I can stand at this Box and agree to a Motion such as that moved by the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander). There are occasions, particularly on Supplementary


Estimates, when I have to be firm and hard and when I am called rude names by hon. Members opposite. To-night I find myself in the position of being able to say that the Government are prepared to agree to the Motion, always with this proviso, that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Supplementary Estimates and other financial business must be completed and got through this House by 28th March, for the end of the financial year. The Government are not anxious to ask the Committee to sit unduly late, but on the next occasion when Supplementary Estimates are put down it means that those which have not been secured to-day must be added on top of the work to be done subsequently. I am not making any warning or threat, but the Committee will understand that if we do not finish the Supplementary Estimates to-night, they must be taken on the next occasion on which such business is put down. I agree that the Committee has made substantial progress to-day, and I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we do now agree to report Progress and take these Estimates another day, when probably they will pass with greater ease and facility than if we proceeded with them now.

Mr. Alexander: I would like to accept the concession of the right hon. Gentleman in the spirit in which it is given, except to say that while we recognise that the Government must get their financial business through in a certain time, I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman deals with the next day's Supply work he will

consult through the usual channels, so as to get the most important Votes put down for the earliest part of the day's discussion.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — SUPERANNUATION (VARIOUS SERVICES) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).

Ordered, "That Mr. Ivor Guest be added to the Select Committee on Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons)."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-six Minutes before One o'Clock.